Saturday, January 12, 2008
Review of North's _The Making of Knowledge in Composition_
Please post your reviews by using the response button. I'm looking forward to reading them.
What is (Good) Research? Reply Four
Rory, Tony, and Tiffany
Braddock-work with topic sentences
This work has influenced personal writing in that it makes me less concerned with it during the invention process. Pedagogically is provides supports that writing teachers can teach writing as a process and not a formula.
Red cars get in more car accidents than other colored cars. There are way too many variables to prove this claim. There is a huge difference between correlation and causation. Who was driving the car?
Good research
Context-grounded in a specific context
Accounting for variables-acknowledging limitations
Apply findings cautiously while knowing that findings might be inconclusive
Use of credible sources
Sufficient data depending on methods used
So what factor
Braddock-work with topic sentences
This work has influenced personal writing in that it makes me less concerned with it during the invention process. Pedagogically is provides supports that writing teachers can teach writing as a process and not a formula.
Red cars get in more car accidents than other colored cars. There are way too many variables to prove this claim. There is a huge difference between correlation and causation. Who was driving the car?
Good research
Context-grounded in a specific context
Accounting for variables-acknowledging limitations
Apply findings cautiously while knowing that findings might be inconclusive
Use of credible sources
Sufficient data depending on methods used
So what factor
What is (Good) Research? Reply Three
Emily Baker
Liane Robertson
Ruth Kistler
A study on Drinking and Driving published in 1994 by Soderstram, Daily and Kerns entitled “Alcohol and Other Drugs: An assessment of testing and Clinical Practices in U.S. Trauma Centers, influenced not only our behavior but most of society when it influenced our laws and thus our behavior as citizens. When blood alcohol levels were introduced as measured elements of impaired motor skills, we began to take notice of the effects of alcohol on driving. Furthermore, beyond blood alcohol content as a standard measure of driving impaired, our states had to comply with federal regulations adapting penalties for drunk driving or risk non-compliance (and not being able to adapt) with new, higher speed limits. We believe in the research because the study is supported by facts, statistics and other, similar research, and is built on years of accepted research.
In 2004 three different studies found that cell phone use increased the risk of brain tumors. However, the millions of cell phone users who never develop cancer, plus the fact that studies have proved almost everything causes cancer, made us doubt these results. Later studies found no such correlation.
What makes good research?
Fact-based research seems to make for better research because it is supported by statistics and existing supporting research. Effective research is thorough and exhaustive, identifies the researchers' own biases and perceptions. Good research acknowledges its faults, yet opens dialogue for further review and research to be conducted.
Liane Robertson
Ruth Kistler
A study on Drinking and Driving published in 1994 by Soderstram, Daily and Kerns entitled “Alcohol and Other Drugs: An assessment of testing and Clinical Practices in U.S. Trauma Centers, influenced not only our behavior but most of society when it influenced our laws and thus our behavior as citizens. When blood alcohol levels were introduced as measured elements of impaired motor skills, we began to take notice of the effects of alcohol on driving. Furthermore, beyond blood alcohol content as a standard measure of driving impaired, our states had to comply with federal regulations adapting penalties for drunk driving or risk non-compliance (and not being able to adapt) with new, higher speed limits. We believe in the research because the study is supported by facts, statistics and other, similar research, and is built on years of accepted research.
In 2004 three different studies found that cell phone use increased the risk of brain tumors. However, the millions of cell phone users who never develop cancer, plus the fact that studies have proved almost everything causes cancer, made us doubt these results. Later studies found no such correlation.
What makes good research?
Fact-based research seems to make for better research because it is supported by statistics and existing supporting research. Effective research is thorough and exhaustive, identifies the researchers' own biases and perceptions. Good research acknowledges its faults, yet opens dialogue for further review and research to be conducted.
What is (Good) Research? Reply Two
Kara and Natalie
1) We read a study last semester about teachers and his or her students writing letters back and forth to discover the role that a teacher’s authority has over the relationship of the teacher and the student. The research indicted that the teachers dominated the conversation (not only choosing the topics, but also stifling topics the students wanted to express) in the letters suggesting that their authority has a large effect on students.
It influenced us because made us think about our role as a teacher and made us think about our influence on our own students. We believed it because the study used the letters between the teachers and students.
2) We read on Yahoo that a study was conducted on who has more social clout: Oprah or Chuch Norris. They were looking at which political candidates Norris and Oprah back and found that Norris had a larger influence (do in part to his internet fame). We didn’t believe it because of the following reasons: we didn’t know who they polled (we are assuming it was the younger generation); Oprah appeals to the older generation, who may not be on the internet as much as the younger generation.
3) Comparing our two studies, the former provided us with methods, participants, and actual excerpts from the letters exchanged, while the latter did not provide any methods or surveys or how many people they polled or even who they did poll. How transparent does the researcher make his or her methods and data? The more apparent the research methods, the more credible the study and its ensuing conclusions.
1) We read a study last semester about teachers and his or her students writing letters back and forth to discover the role that a teacher’s authority has over the relationship of the teacher and the student. The research indicted that the teachers dominated the conversation (not only choosing the topics, but also stifling topics the students wanted to express) in the letters suggesting that their authority has a large effect on students.
It influenced us because made us think about our role as a teacher and made us think about our influence on our own students. We believed it because the study used the letters between the teachers and students.
2) We read on Yahoo that a study was conducted on who has more social clout: Oprah or Chuch Norris. They were looking at which political candidates Norris and Oprah back and found that Norris had a larger influence (do in part to his internet fame). We didn’t believe it because of the following reasons: we didn’t know who they polled (we are assuming it was the younger generation); Oprah appeals to the older generation, who may not be on the internet as much as the younger generation.
3) Comparing our two studies, the former provided us with methods, participants, and actual excerpts from the letters exchanged, while the latter did not provide any methods or surveys or how many people they polled or even who they did poll. How transparent does the researcher make his or her methods and data? The more apparent the research methods, the more credible the study and its ensuing conclusions.
What is (Good) Research? Reply One
1. Julia Smith
Scott Gage
Jill Taylor
Believable
SuperSize Me
A documentary where Morgan Spurlock ate nothing but McDonalds for thirty days and he had doctors measure all the affects on his body: his blood pressure, weight, body mass index, and his organs. Specifically, the doctor told him that his liver was being pickled and that if he didn’t stop he would die. It was believable because of the empirical evidence provided by his doctors. We could visibly see how the food affected his body and the doctors’ responses.
Didn’t Believe
Poll that women who are single over the age 30 are more likely to die by a terrorist then get married
In Newsweek, cited a Harvard and Yale study that stated, “a single woman had only 20% chance of getting married and by 35 the chance drop to 5%”
New evidence demonstrates that this isn’t true….political agenda changed from 1986 to 2006
Where did this information even come from? A survey….of who and what?
Difference between the two: Methodology was much more clear and easy to see with the Supersize Me documentary. The viewer is able to see who is speaking, why he is speaking, where he is getting his information from, and that his sources are legitimate and credible. The second piece does not provide a rhetorical context for the information.
Scott Gage
Jill Taylor
Believable
SuperSize Me
A documentary where Morgan Spurlock ate nothing but McDonalds for thirty days and he had doctors measure all the affects on his body: his blood pressure, weight, body mass index, and his organs. Specifically, the doctor told him that his liver was being pickled and that if he didn’t stop he would die. It was believable because of the empirical evidence provided by his doctors. We could visibly see how the food affected his body and the doctors’ responses.
Didn’t Believe
Poll that women who are single over the age 30 are more likely to die by a terrorist then get married
In Newsweek, cited a Harvard and Yale study that stated, “a single woman had only 20% chance of getting married and by 35 the chance drop to 5%”
New evidence demonstrates that this isn’t true….political agenda changed from 1986 to 2006
Where did this information even come from? A survey….of who and what?
Difference between the two: Methodology was much more clear and easy to see with the Supersize Me documentary. The viewer is able to see who is speaking, why he is speaking, where he is getting his information from, and that his sources are legitimate and credible. The second piece does not provide a rhetorical context for the information.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Welcome to RC Research Methods
The purpose of the research methods course for rhetoric and composition, seen from one perspective, is to prepare students to engage as researchers in the field. Basically, this means that we can consume research—i.e., read (and critique) research in the field—and create research—i. e., create research questions, determine a fitting research design, select appropriate methodologies, and complete the research, understanding in the process the limitations inherent in any research project. Seen from another perspective, however, this kind of research course continually poses and seeks to answer the question, how do we make knowledge, specifically in rhetoric and composition? Such a question is located in research questions as well as in methods. Typically, a discipline is defined by its methods, and at the same time, many fields import methods from other fields. This question of knowledge-making is thus both vexed and intriguing, given r/c’s long-standing interest in interdisciplinary approaches, nearly all of which you’ll find in this course. Seen from a third perspective, this course also introduces you to at least some of the more “invisible” mechanisms that regulate knowledge-making, for example peer review. At the conclusion of this course, then, you will be able to read and talk back to research; to understand the scholarly practices through which the knowledge that “counts” gets made; to create your own research designs (though not in all areas) and begin to carry them out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)