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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I like the use of the Braddock article example by a few people. I was thinking of that example as well...it shows how important the details of ethnographic research can be...and that if we dig deep we might better challenge assumptions or expose assumptions. I read a great piece from a book on oral history about a year ago called: "That's Not What I Said":Interpretive Conflict in Oral Narrative Research, by Katherine Borland. The author had interviewed her grandmother, actually, about the feminist position in society years earlier....long story short, the author/granddaughter went back to her subject with a written version of what she had interpreted from interviews. She had taken license in her interpretation of the oral data collected; the end result was that her subject considered it an inaccurate portrayal. The author learned valuable lessons about not making assumptions in research, and that's what the piece is about. If anyone wants a copy I have it still.
LR
This makes sense to me as well: sort of like what goes out of one mouth isn't what necessary goes into the listener's ear.
One quick note, though: Braddock's study is discourse analysis, not ethnography.
ky
We started with a solid definition of research methods (the transparency of the methods help add to the study's crediblity). What we left out was what the methods are, which is what we studied all semester. We found that the type of methodology used is vital to the credibility of the study and genuinely affects the outcomes and the findings. Rather than judging the study, we learned how to question and offer altnerative possibilities.
We started with a solid definition of research methods (the transparency of the methods help add to the study's crediblity). What we left out was what the methods are, which is what we studied all semester. We found that the type of methodology used is vital to the credibility of the study and genuinely affects the outcomes and the findings. Rather than judging the study, we learned how to question and offer altnerative possibilities.
PS...the above posting was Kara, Natalie and Brittney (not KY) :)
Post a Comment