3.13.13 Blog post

Blog post for Advanced Qual

3.13.13

Readings

I read quite a few things for class this week.  I read the Hammersley article about transcription (very eye opening), the section in Creswell on Case study, and Bent Flyvbjerg’s Case Study from the 2011 Handbook of Qualitative Research.   I also finished reading a dissertation that was a train wreck…it was out of the University of Cincinnati and related to both case study and professional development.   I had high hopes, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) it was a lesson in what NOT to do in a dissertation. 

                 As I read the Hammersley article and reflected upon the project I completed for my Intro to Qual class last semester, I saw the trail of decisions that were made along the way in regards to transcription.   Because I chose how to transcribe, how much to transcribe etc…I had to acknowledge the variability of transcription and that my ideas about how it is done are not the “given”.  The article made me think about how important it is to be transparent about the decisions made in transcription and the rationale behind those decisions.   For my project, I transcribed the conversation completely.  We were given the option to only do SOME, but I didn’t feel like I could make a good decision about what to transcribe or what not to transcribe.   I also attempted to record ums (pauses), laughter, and uh hmms (agreements).  I was really inconsistent with this...I found it REALLY hard to capture!   I didn’t think about silence or gestures or movements.  Though, I can see how that information might be useful.  As best I could, I tried to record interruptions, but I am sure I missed some.  I also made decisions about labeling the speakers (I believe I used an initial for the speaker and an initial for myself), but I wasn’t really conscious of this being a decision until I read this article.  I did it because it made sense to me…no other criteria.

                I liked the quote that said, “ There is a slippery slope from recognition that decisions and interpretations are necessarily involved in transcription to the conclusion that the data are created or constituted by the transcriber rather than representing more or less adequately ‘what occurred’.”  I thought this was important to keep in mind and summarized the dilemma well – yes, it is true that decisions are made about transcription and that there is no standard way that transcription is done, but that is a far cry from someone ‘fictionalizing’ the interaction.   I liked how the author distinguished between ‘strict transcription’ (the words spoken) and secondary aspects of transcription (which included aspects like dialect and pauses and laughter).

                The Creswell pages about Case study were pretty basic, and didn’t provide too much new information for me about case study.   I did like the idea on the last page about developing a ‘data matrix’ to anticipate the kind and quantity of data that would be collected.

                The Flyvbjerg article about Case Study was very interesting.  The author refuted 5 misunderstandings of case study research, offering a reframing of the misunderstanding as a positive assertion after his reasoning through the fallacy of the myth or misunderstanding.   Within his argument about case study and generalization, Flyvbjerg said, “Gailileo’s experimentalism did not involve a large random sample of trials of objects falling from a wide range of randomly selected heights under varying wind conditions, and so on….rather, it was a matter of a single experiment, that is, a case study, if any experiment was conducted at all… (p. 304).”  This really helped me think about how what is learned in case studies might be transferable from one situation to another, by the reader, of course…  On page 312 the author talked a great deal about “the reader”… the person who reads the case study gets to decide how the information is relatable, transferrable, or relevant to her situation and what learning she is taking away from the case study.  That section was the most important to me.  Have you read it?

Project Update

I continue to work with my professor at the research site doing observations, engaging with participants, and talking with her about what we are noticing at the site.   I did not go this Tuesday to do observations, because the system was on Spring Break.  I will devote all day tomorrow to typing up notes from last visit (3.5) and scanning collected artifacts to place in the HU I created.  I have begun to do some initial coding of the data I have in the HU and will do more tomorrow.  I plan to submit the HU to you prior to class, so that I can get some feedback.  I would like to devote a considerable amount of time during spring break to doing more analysis.  I will also schedule a session with Ann for after Spring Break so that she can guide me through aspects of Atlas.ti that I am still unsure about.    Last Tuesday when I was at the research site, I was able to show the professor I work with the documents I had uploaded and had begun to code.  It was interesting to be on the OTHER side of things with Atlas.ti.   I am far from an expert, but I do find it quite useful.  Will we cover more of Atlas.ti in Digital tools this summer?