« brandt quickly [methodology] | Main | herrington (in jolliffe) less quickly [methodology] »
August 13, 2006
williamson (in jolliffe) less quickly [methodology]
Williamson, Micheal M. "A Model for Investigating the Functions of Written Language in Different Disciplines." Advances in Writing Research Volume Two: Writing in Academic Disciplines. Ed. David A. Jolliffe. Ablex: Norwood, NJ. 1988. 89-132.
informant selection process: involved asking around, working toward a range of disciplinary representation, conversations w/department chairs to suggest members of each department to work with, & "the purpose of having two informants [from each discipline] was to provide a basis for cross checking the views of each with the other"; b/c department chairs knew this was a writing-instruction study, their recommendations were somewhat biased (100-1). (at what point is that actually bias & not just reasonable selection? don't you want to work with people who have some interest in your study, because disinterested participants won't offer much energy/inspired insight?)
data collection: "scheduled data collection was based upon two interviews with each participant, the first as a data collection session and the second as a confirmation session. comparison of data collected in the first interview with data collected in the second interview, comparison of data collected with the other informant in each department, and comparison of the data collected in other departments allowed for a cross-checking strategy which triangulated each informant, as a data source, with at least three other data sources. i conducted the first interview with all participants before conducting any confirmation interviews, to be sure that i had an opportunity to gather all possible themes" (101).
"i tape-recorded both of the scheduled interviews, because it allowed for a permanent record of everything said, but left me free to concentrate on the substance of the interview itself (Mosher & Kalton, 1972). Belson (1967) reports that the accuracy of responses in his sample was not affected by the use of tape recorder, although upper social classes tended to have slightly reduced linguistic accuracy when taped, possibly because they are monitoring their speech. on the other hand, Diesing cites a study by Clark (1965) which reports that informant responses of academics are likely to be more carefully considered and formal when they believe that their statements will be recorded verbatim and transcribed. (this part is the greatest! –say what!?!?) since most academics are used to having students record their lectures, i do not believe that the taping was intrusive" (101).
"the first interview with each informant was planned around a loose schedule which began with my clarifying the purpose of the study. i then asked… [sequence of questioning follows] during this interview, i also solicited documents, in the form of course syllabi, assignment sheets, and student papers. these i examined with the informant at this interview. in the second interview with each informant, i showed tentative models of the role of written language in his or her course and his or her scholarship as these models related to the discipline and the university and invited him or her to confirm, reject, or revise these models with me. at the same time, i cross checked information from other informants and solicited further information to clarify details… (101-2)" (& at what point does cross-checking become providing "answers" & muddying your data-set? can i say to my writers, "one of your peers described it this way; how does that description work for you?" & use the answers? or is that me telling them what to think/say?)
Posted by ttobryan at August 13, 2006 09:29 AM