Qualitative Methods in Media and Communication PDF

**QUALITATIVE METHODS IN MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION (QUAL)** Brennen -- Chapter 1. Getting Started **Cultural approach to communication** - Theory as the systematic explanations of real-world everyday practices - Com­munication process as a means of production that is based on the disco...

**QUALITATIVE METHODS IN MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION (QUAL)** Brennen -- Chapter 1. Getting Started **Cultural approach to communication** - Theory as the systematic explanations of real-world everyday practices - Com­munication process as a means of production that is based on the discourse of individuals and groups and is produced within a specific cultural, his­torical and political context - It is through our use of language that we make meaning and construct our own social realities **Quantitative research** - Systematic, precise and accurate as it tries to determine validity, reliabil­ity, objectivity and truth - Attempts to isolate specific elements, and it uses numbers and numerical correlations within value­-free environments to measure and analyze the "causal relationships between vari­ables - Because it uses numbers to quan­tify data, quantitative research is often considered more authentic, important and scientific **Qualitative research** - Interdisciplinary, interpretive, politi­cal and theoretical in nature - Using language to understand concepts based on people's experiences, it attempts to create a sense of the larger realm of human relationships; attempt to understand the many relationships that exist within media and society - Consider alternative notions of knowledge and they understand that reality is socially constructed - Strives to understand the traditions, contexts, usages and meanings of words, concepts and ideas; language/discourse as fundamental aspect - Active role of the researcher and an understanding that all inquiry is fundamentally subjective **The development of qualitative research** - Researchers who questioned the dominant social science perspective of mass communication often envisioned communication as a cultural practice, through which issues of power, class and social identity could be negotiated - Qualitative methods to understand communication as a social and cultural practice; quantitative meth­ods could not help them to answer central questions regarding the role of "communication as the social production of meaning" - By the end of the twentieth century, qualitative methodologies had been fully integrated into the realm of communication and media studies **Paradigms**: intellectual maps and models that provide a set of views and beliefs that researchers use to guide their work; different ways of conceptualizing the research process - **Ontology**: view on the nature of reality/the (social) world - What exists? What is reality? Is there such a thing as reality? - **Epistemology**: Perceived relationship with knowledge, 'study of knowledge' - How do we know the world/reality? What is the relationship between the inquirer and the known? Are we part of knowledge or external to it? - **Methodology:** set of beliefs about how to study/gain knowledge about the social world and practices/methods of studying it; how to collect and analyze data + reasons/arguments, how we go about discovering & creating knowledge - Method: set of instructions on how to study the social world It is difficult to create a single qualitative paradigm that represents a specific worldview qualitative research is not a unique paradigm but rather is influenced by several distinct paradigms; **Predictive**: belief in a singular, big­ "T" understanding of truth; unified reality; researchers as neutral and objective observers who primarily rely on [quantitative] methods - **Positivism**: consider reality to exist and scien­tific truth to be knowable and findable through rigorous testing that is free from human bias; objective observation of the material world - **Post-Positivist**: consider reality to exist but because people are flawed, they may not be able actually to understand it; complex world - Positivist but light version: there is a truth out there but we are not entirely sure we can actually get to it because humans and their methods are flawed **Descriptive**: belief in multiple interpretations of a little­ "t" understanding of truth and envision many constructed and competing notions of reality; researcher subjectivity; [qualitative] methods; process shaped by the very society it investigates - **Constructivism/Constructionism**: truth is not universally known; reality is not independent of its observer - **Critical tradition:** focus on power relations; reality and truth to be shaped by context (specific historical, cultural, racial, gender, political and economic conditions, values and structures); in their research they critique racism, sexism, oppression and inequality, and they press for fundamental and transformative social change, interested in how power shapes the research process - **Participatory/Cooperative Inquiry**: transformative perspective that emphasizes the subjectivity of practical knowledge and the collaborative nature of research; breaks down the hierarchy between researcher and researched (interested in how researchers could empower their own participant to become co-researchers) Brennen - Chapter 2. Doing Qualitative Research **Two different understandings of the communication process:** - Transmission view: communication as a process of sending, transmitting or delivering information in order to control others; focuses on sending messages over distances in order to distribute common knowledge and ideas (quantitative) - Ritual view: people share customs, beliefs, ideas and experiences, a process that reinforces and maintains a common culture (qualitative) **Doing quantitative research** - Draw on the denotative or explicit meanings of words in order to operationalize their research terms and create a precise coding system - Identify variables, operationalize research terms, construct hypotheses, conduct experiments, measure data and repli­cate findings **Doing qualitative research** - Focus on the denotative as well as the (multiple) conno­tative meanings and implications of the words that they use - Ask research questions, search for meaning, look for useful ways to talk about experiences within a specific historical, cul­tural, economic and/or political context, and consider the research process within relevant social practices **The Qualitative Research Process** 1. [Choosing a topic of study] - Mass communication as a product: looking at media products in their entirety in an attempt to understand common practices, issues and concerns - Mass communication as a (cultural) practice: through which people make meaning out of their lives - Mass communication as a commentary: on relationships/impact between media and society 2. [Constructing a research question and picking method of analysis based on an interpretive paradigm or theoretical framework ] - Answerable, open ended, incorporates a theoretical concept - Designing project: what type of evidence is needed in order to answer the question in a convincing way? Detailed, transparent, consider advantages and disadvantages 3. [Gathering evidence] 4. [Analyzing and interpreting data] 5. [Crafting a research report; writing it all up] - The realist tale: write in the third person, a strategy that conveys a sense of neutrality, impartiality and objectivity - The confessional tale: describe their own experiences, often in the first person, to help understand their personal cultural journeys in conducting the studies - The impressionist tale: attempts to challenge readers' assumptions and expectations, and often focus on the text's role in our interpreta­tions Popular order for elements in qualitative research reports, but order may vary: 1. Introduction 2. Research Question(s) 3. Theoretical Framework 4. Literature Review 5. Methodology 6. Analysis, Interpretations and Commentary 7. Conclusion 8. References Flick -- Ethics in Qualitative Research **Basic principles of ethically sound research** - Informed consent: no one should be involved in research as a participant without knowing about this and without having the chance of refusing to take part - Deception of research participants (by covert observation or by giving them false information about the purpose of research) should be avoided - Participants' privacy should be respected and confidentiality should be guaranteed and maintained - Accuracy of the data and their interpretation should be the leading principle: no omission or fraud with the collection or analysis of data should occur in the research practice - In relation to the participants, respect for the person is seen as essential - Beneficence: considering the well-being of the participants - Justice: addresses the relation of benefits and burdens for the research participants **Preparation** - Relevance: is the topic relevant to study? - Participants: is it justified to 'use' them? - Researchers: is the researcher prepared to go into the field? **Research questions** - [Focus]: the focus of the research question and a clear planning at this stage can prevent participants from being 'over-researched', meaning that they are asked for more insight into their privacy than necessary - [Confrontation]: take precautions to avoid harm to the participants (e.g. doing interviews with people suffering from a beginning dementia can be very painful for the participants as they are confronted with their forget-fulness) - [Deception]: Of course, we should inform participants about our topic of research, but if we present our research question in detail, we might produce specific expectations or irritations **Access and sampling** - [Informed consent form]: mutual contract which explains the purpose of the research, the expectations from the participant (e.g. to give an interview), the procedure with the data (how long it is to be stored, who will have access, how is anonymity guaranteed) - [Vulnerable people]: Sometimes we work with people who are not in a situation to sign a contract -- such as children, very old people or patients - [No harm]: participants do not suffer any disadvantages, harm or risks from taking part - [Selection]: sample interview partners from a group of people who know or are in touch with each other, it can be irritating for the individual not being chosen for participation **Collecting data** - [Disturbance]: reflect our impact on the daily life of our participants and should try to limit it to what is absolutely or really necessary - [Being pushy]: t is important to develop a feeling for the limits of our participants, when it comes to issues they cannot or do not want to talk about, and for when we should stop insisting - [Being ignorant:] sensibility for when to take up such issues to avoid being ignorant of such aspects and to the participant **Analyzing data** - Being accurate: using a method, and using explicit rather than implicit comparison - Being fair: Do not be too fast with (over-) generalizations and try to keep the deviant cases in mind when developing patterns, types and other forms of generalizations. Be careful with internal generalization -- when you infer from occasional statements to regular habits or traits of people or institutions, for example - Being confidential: keep the anonymity and privacy of your research participants - Avoid cemeteries of data: Do not keep your data for the rest of your life, but keep them safely stored as long as you really need them **Writing, generalization and feedback** - Select your wording with respect: quote participants or write about them - Avoid biased language and be sensitive in use of labels - Do not try to modify findings (slightly) to meet audiences expectations Lecture 1 -- Introduction (+Tutorial) **Four principles for Qualitative Research** 1. [About meaning-making instead of numbers]: meaning-making refers to how socially shared understandings of the world are developed and circulated 2. [Qualitative research embraces the complexity of social life, without necessarily reducing it to causal relationships:] observe phenomenon in natural context; comprehensive view instead of a causal explanation that can be generalized 3. [Qualitative research provides micro insights instead of the macro picture]: [ ] provide an in-depth understanding 4. Informed by different epistemological, ontological, and methodological positions **Core features of Qualitative research** - Insightful: gives us a sense of how people make sense of the world in which they live, how do our social processes come to be and become sustained? - Complex: we need to have a nuanced understanding of the social world, taking into consideration power, culture, and knowledge - Emancipatory: we don't want to say why things are the way they are, we want to say that so we can begin to see possible ways to change Social science research is different than everyday research (like which phone to buy) - Intentionality - Methodical process: explained and justified (transparent) choices & iterative; data collection can be changed during the process based on preliminary findings  Brennen -- Chapter 7. Ethnography and Participant Observation (+ Lecture 2) **Ethnography**: the qualitative method of observing, talking to and interacting with people in their natural environments (where they live, play and/or work) - [Telling stories]: drawing audience into lives of the respondents; replicating this experiences through producing data about social context and a scientific focus: organizing accounts of people's experiences - Emphasis on observing people's actions and behaviors: people's beliefs, rituals, attitudes, actions, stories and behaviors - Grounded in the concept of culture: to understand people's interests, practices, and experiences (in communities) - Research is always a matter of interpreting and constructing reality from a partic­ular position - Digital ethnography: augmenting online data and documents with field observations, interviews and other qualitative methods in an effort to understand the relevant context and the larger issues related to the use of digital media - Autoethnography: autobiographical genre of writing and research; intertwining the ethnographic wide-angle lens and the inward vulnerable self (focus on what is particular and what may be); written in the first person, usually a single case, more literary than scientific writing **Purposes** **for ethnography** - Capture life as experienced by participants **Thick description**: rich understanding of how people are experiencing their life; blending of observation and interpretation; paying attention to the social context/contextual information; construction of other people's constructions - Describe and interpret observable relationships, between social practices and systems of meaning, based upon first-hand experience and exploration of a cultural setting practices - Rely on natural settings: to capture behavior as it occurs in the real world **Strengths of ethnography** - Flexible and emergent design - Social processes over time - Richer and fuller description of phenomena - Great to use with other methods - Relatively unobtrusive - Can create new ideas and validate other research **Weaknesses of ethnography** - Not everything can be directly observed - Time consuming - Transferability issues - Dependent on observer's abilities - Requires an accounting of researcher's positionality: reflexivity **Participant observation**: fieldwork through which a researcher observes and interacts with others; ethnography done in one's own culture rather than in a foreign country - Ethnography's primary methodological tool: gaining access to a group, culture or organization - Iterative and cyclical process: inductive and deductive - Requires building a rapport - Complete observer/non-participant observer: someone who observes from a distance and has no interaction with the people, group or community that is being observed - Researcher role is hidden, does not affect what happens - one-way glass mirror/binoculars/recordings - Observer as participant: researchers who are on­site but who distance themselves from those being observed; may talk with and interview people in an organization or community, but they do not actively participate in activities, rituals or events - Primary role is observer, distance, no central roles, tendency to focus on (ethnographic) [interviews] - Notes about what they have seen rather than what they have experienced - Participant as observer: researcher is fully integrated into the culture being studied; spends considerable time in the community, participates in activities, and adopts specific interests, practices, rituals and procedures while taking extensive field notes about his or her observations and experiences - Researcher role acknowledged, yet not complete commitment, complicated role as insider; use interviews as supplementary - Complete participant: fully bonded with the organization, group or culture, adopting its members' values and beliefs, and may even abandon his or her research role; no longer taking field notes - Researcher role is hidden and is an active member and can affect what happens **Field notes**: details about the physical space and time, about the people they observe, about the activities and rituals, about the types of interactions - Participant observation information becomes data; recording of mundane everyday details - Throughout the ethnographic process, researchers consult their field notes, rereading them, annotating them, reflecting on their observations, adding additional commentary and using them to provide preliminary analysis and interpretations - Challenges ethnographers to explain their theoretical positions and reminds them of the possibility that there may be alternative interpretations for their observations McKechnie - Observational Research **Observational research**: collecting impressions of the world using all of one\'s senses, especially looking and listening, in a systematic and purposeful way to learn about a phenomenon of interest - More typically takes place in natural settings - Direct contact between the researcher and participants or indirect methods such as audio- or videorecording - Constructivist approach: emphasizing meanings that the participants attach to activities and events Emergent research design: involves a cyclical process, moving back and forth between inductive and deductive reasoning - Themes are identified through the analysis of observed behavior; these themes suggest areas for focusing subsequent observation; subsequent observations suggest new themes that then initiate more observations **Strengths of observational research** - Well suited to both the discovery of new information (theory generation) and the validation of existing knowledge (theory confirmation) - Thick descriptions result in deeper, fuller understanding of phenomena **Weaknesses of observational research** - Not all phenomena, such as cognitive processes, can be directly observed - Requires a substantial amount of time - Usually tied to one specific place, raising issues related to the transferability of findings to other settings - Subject to observer bias that occurs when researchers channel both their observation and interpretation of data through what they know; the researcher\'s situation (e.g., gender, class, and ethnicity) must be fully understood as it acts as a lens through which observation is conducted Lecture 2. Ethnography and Participant Observation **Developing a research question** - [Answerable] - [Open-ended] - Interesting - Relevant: social and scientific relevance - Feasible - Ethical - Concise **Tips for developing a Qualitative RQ** - Not reducible to impact of X on Y: cannot be about causality - Usually are in some way 'How' questions - Generally focus on people's stories: focused on experiences and perceptions - Should hint towards your paradigm Gatekeeper: granting access or not (e.g. a manager granting access to observe its employees) no relationship between research/topic Sponsor: relationship between research/topic; advocates for your research, helps you out with finding participants Dumitrica & Pridmore -- Qualitative Interviews and Sampling (+ Lecture 3) **When do you use surveys, focus groups, or interviews?** - [Survey]: list of people's attitudes, beliefs, preferences, or simple knowledge; capture answers across large groups of people; not interested in the process (how they think about x) or the explanations (why they think this or that) - [Focus groups]: your aim is to understand how people\'s understanding of a topic is formulated, offered, and discussed with others; interaction with others - [Interviews]: aim is to understand not only *what*, but primarily *how* people make sense of a topic; when you need to capture individuals\' in-depth views on a topic; focus on the details of the meaning-making process among specific groups of people; no correlations or establishing causal relations (only accounts of causality) **Qualitative interviews**: Dialogue between the researcher and the participant: he researcher usually asks questions, in an effort to collect the participant's understanding of the research topic. The participants usually respond by explaining their own views, preferences, beliefs and experiences on the research topic - Allows researchers to engage with people's [meaning-making practices] in a more natural setting (but still guided by the researcher) - Factual interviews: aim to collect people\'s account of what is going on in a field or during an event; accounts and explanations of behavior; motivations behind certain action - Conceptual interviews: seek to clarify how people understand an abstract concept such as \'democracy\'; Interpretations of texts, events, phenomena, etc - Narrative interviews: focus on how participants talk about their lives or about specific events; views and opinions on an event or phenomenon; life stories - Discursive interviews: interested in how participants select specific symbols and arguments to explain their own position **Formula for developing research questions that require interviews** How + \[group of people\] + \[verb related to meaning-making\] + \[topic\] - e.g. How do online trolls define that act of trolling? How do journalists understand objectivity as an ideal in news reporting? How do teens interpret their participation on Tinder? **Sampling and Access** **Sampling process** 1. [Define sample] 2. [Decide upon sample size] - Saturation: when new interviews no longer produce new insights; some researchers actively try to press for new insights to ensure they have reached saturation - Anything ranging from 10 to 30 people reasonably balance feasibility with the expectation of in-depth insight and saturation 3. [Select sampling strategy] - Extreme/deviant samples: include cases that are at the extremes of the topic under investigation (e.g. people completely against marriage and people who are completely for marriage/marriage at young age) - Typical samples: includes the average cases in relation to the topic under investigation; the opposite of extreme samples - Maximal variation samples: focus on achieving as much variety among participants as possible; the nuanced views and the extremes (e.g. people against marriage, people for marriage, and people in the middle) - Critical samples: include individuals whose experiences provide most expertise (e.g. experts in a field) - Sensitive samples: focus on selecting individuals in precarious positions, although the ethics of that needs to be carefully considered - Convenience samples: include the individuals who are most accessible to the researcher; least accepted in social research, and not recommended for student assignments; must be avoided as much as possible - Snowball samples: the initial participants recommend other potential participants that meet the sampling criteria 4. [Sample sourcing/recruitment] - Gatekeeper: institutions restricting access to those outside of it - Sponsor: someone from the community who could vouch for you and encourage others to participate in your project - To what extent is your recruitment process intrusive - Informed consent: what your study is about, what type of participants you are interested in, what exactly are you asking of these participants, potential risks and benefits for your participants **Process of data collection** **Constructivist paradigm**: to study social reality entails to study the multiple, intangible mental constructions, socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature - The researcher's own epistemological position: her/ his departure point on what constitutes data and how it can be gathered - Co-production of meaning/co-construction of social reality: when a researchers ask a question, your participant responds to you and to the wider context where both of you are located; Instead of trying to remove themselves from the interaction, qualitative researchers acknowledge that their presence is the reason why people talk; the researcher and the respondent are seen as interactively linked so that the findings are literally created as the investigation proceeds - Self-reflexive/Reflexivity: the researcher has to become aware of their own interpretations of the world and how these interpretations depend upon the researcher's own position in the social hierarchy and their own experiences of this social world **Types of interviews** - Structured interviews: set-in-stone list of questions (interview schedule) that is asked in the same order to all participants; least in-depth as there is no opportunity to ask follow-up questions; more formal; good when you have multiple interviewers - Semi-structured interviews: interviews work with a set of topics (interview guide/topic guide): for each topic, a few sample questions are developed; during the interview, the researcher feels free to deviate from the order of the topics and to come up with new, follow-up questions; less formal - Unstructured interviews: pursuing one major topic, but each interview is different from each other; there is no given set of topics or questions; the interviewer allows the participant to take the discussion in the directions they see most fit **Interview guide and questions** **The interview/topic guide**: list of the most relevant topics that need to be touched upon in the interview in order to answer the research question. - The questionnaire: a list of questions, usually grouped around the topics, that the researcher can use during the interview. - Follow-up questions/ probes: a list of questions or statements that will be asked to further probe into the answers provided by participants; note that material probes (e.g. a news story, an advertisement, an object) can also be elicited or brought to the interview to facilitate the discussion **Things to keep in mind** - [Sequence of topics and questions]: - Warming-up section (an icebreaker or a 'get-to-know-each- other' topic); ask the participant about their relevant past experience with the problem in the research question - Place sensitive or abstract topics towards the end of the interview - [Construction of good questions, including follow-up opportunities] - Check understanding: rephrasing your own questions or participants answers - Probe: checking yourself against taking things for granted; follow-up; go more in-depth - Evaluate answers: in non-threatening ways - Phatic communication: comforting reactions; verbal and nonverbal cues that tell the participant you are listening, such as 'uh-huh' or nodding - Silence: shut up! - Look at your participant (instead of writing notes down) - Open-ended questions - Avoid the use of academic concepts/jargon - Avoid double-barreled questions - Use questions that focus on the participant's experience or views on a concrete case or example Scheduling**:** when and where: protected times and spaces for the interview Transcript: word by word record of the interview. Includes pauses, sighs, laughter hesitations, and interruptions. In some cases, researchers need to also capture pace, pitch, intonation, etc. Lecture 3. Qualitative interviews **Epistemological assumptions informing qualitative interviews** - Interviews study [meaning-making] in its natural context - Researcher [intervention] in data generation and collection is [part] of meaning-making; not a loss of objectivity; reflexivity - Individual meaning-making is tributary to [intersubjective] and shared forms of understanding in a society - Constructivist paradigm - From subjectivity to intersubjectivity: we make sense of the world through shared symbols, stories, cultural practices, etc. that other people know and recognize easily - Interviews are [not about uncovering the Truth], but about uncovering meaning-making; you hold interviews to catch a glimpse into how people think 1. **Interviews as resource**: interview data are seen as more or less reflecting the interviewees' reality outside the interview; you take the responses at their face-value and use them to reconstruct events or practices (more quantitative, positivist paradigm) 2. **Interviews as data**: interview data are seen as a reflection of a reality jointly constructed by interviewee and interviewer; the answers are not taken as a mirror of reality, instead they approached as an act of symbolically constructing reality, that requires further deconstruction;\ mutual construction, acknowledge the role of the researcher **Whom should I interview?** - Population of relevance: in your research question, usually broad - Sampling: depth over breadth, purposive (non-probability) - Sampling criteria: who is best suited to answer and why; e.g. what is considered 'young' in your research? - [Transparent and logical argumentation]: makes your reseach systematic - Recruitment: what is the best way to get participants who fit the sampling criteria? Through which channels? Homogeneous or heterogeneous sample? **Rapport**: establish a good relationship with your participant so that they are comfortable enough to share their thought processes with you - Put the interviewee at ease: remind that you are not there to judge or interrupt - Clarity of purpose: informed consent - Self-disclosure for both in the interview Iterative nature of purposive sampling: - Iterative: steps that can be repeated again and again to tweak and improve them - sample interview fine-tune focus sample (improve sample criteria - subtle changes that are opened up by preliminary findings, such as realizing you need more respondents of a particular type, realizing you need to also ask about x and y or realizing some respondents know more about A than B Dumitrica & Pridmore -- Focus Groups **Focus group**: directed conversation on a specific topic, issue or concern (or a set of these) with a small number of participants - Researcher as focus group moderator: does not control of dominate the group, but facilitates an ongoing conversation directed towards answering her research question - To understand how people think and act individually and within a social group; to understand how people\'s understanding of a topic is formulated, offered, and discussed with others; interaction with others - Interactive conversation-based meeting usually conducted with about six to twelve participants, lasts for 30 minutes at a minimum to two hours at a maximum, happens in a face-to-face environment, in a location that is separated from distractions - Could include stimulus material: to prompt ongoing conversations related to the researcher's overall research question (e.g. a video or picture) - NOT 'group interviews': does not adequately take into account the 'socialness' of group conversations and sees focus groups as just expanded in-depth interviews with multiple respondents with the advantage of being completed in less time than individual interviews **Reasons to use focus groups**: - [Multiple perspectives] being given at one time - [Designed to include voices of persons with limited power]: a focus group can include those often excluded or those that might not be willing to participate in a one-on-one interview - [Reduce the distance between professional researchers and target audiences]: focus group participants are more likely to reveal more about their perspectives particularly if there are others in the group that share a similar perspective allows for a researcher to have a better sense of the complexities of behavior and motivations of participants, and how much these persons might have a consensus around the research topic - [Tool for validating research findings]: after other research methods are employed; checking to see if earlier research is shown to be true within the group - [Preliminary step to focus further research]: before other research methods are employed; to highlight specific topics, concerns, or issues for analysis within surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments **Group effect**: when participants draw upon shared experiences with others that they do not know prior to the focus group; elicits talk that may be difficult to prompt in an individual interview (safety in numbers) - Complimentary interactions: when participants support the perspectives of others, adding detail and meaning from their own experiences of similar events or thoughts (most valuable insights as they are spontaneous and reinforce insightful responses to questions) - Argumentative interactions: when participants have very different perspectives on a particular (type of) experience and this creates a divisive moment in the discussion **Advantages of focus groups** - More dynamic/productive data - Socially oriented research method that captures real life data in a social environment - Flexible research method - Allows the researcher to get data quickly from a group of respondents with less cost, both in terms of time and money - Often bring out aspects of the topic that would have not been anticipated by the researcher **Disadvantages of focus groups** - The researcher has less control: requires the moderator to have some special skills in handling the focus group context - The data from focus groups can be difficult to analyze: fast-paced movement of a group conversation, jumping from topic to topic - Often difficult to arrange: both in terms of timing for participants and location Online focus groups: focus groups conducted through the use of a live chat and a video platform - Lower costs in terms of time and scheduling - Providing additional diversity for a research study, particularly persons that are difficult to recruit normally - Access becomes available for everyone to join from a place they feel comfortable - Some participants may be more willing to discuss sensitive topics - Security and setup issues - Even less control for the researcher -  Inability to capture most non-verbal communication - Reduced potential for intimacy and spontaneity -  Difficulty stimulating authentic interaction **Focus group set up** 1. [Identifying who to include]: what sort of knowledge, experience and demographic background should be included in your focus group 2. [Making contact with and recruit participants]: may take significant time particularly in terms of scheduling the focus group; make it worthwhile for participants by offering an incentive (payment, voucher or food) 3. [Determine the facilities, hosting, and environmental factors]: ensure that the comfort and convenience of participants is taken care of and any needed equipment is set up 4. [Get informed consent] from all participants **Focus group sample:** degree to which the focus group will display hetero- or homogeneity in its make-up - Heterogenous: people from diverse backgrounds; - Usually better for exploring issues of a public nature" particularly as they may be more inclined to pay attention to the moderator than each other - Eliminates the likelihood that the researcher will miss certain norms and patterns of interaction that groups already familiar with each other might have established - Homogenous: participants with very similar backgrounds; - Allows the researcher to focus less on having to create a hospitable and welcoming environment, and more on the questions she wants to ask - Members tend to be more willing to speak openly and express themselves in ways that relate well with other members - Risk of group think: similarly situated participants conform to the opinions and positions of the most outspoken members of the group **Process of data collection** 1. [Developing rapport] between the moderator and the focus group participants: making the conversation more comfortable 2. [Introducing the topic]: beginning with some open questions, keep the introduction to the topic short; the longer the moderator talks at the beginning, the more likely that this will set the tone for the entire focus group and participants will not want or expect to contribute much to the discussion 3. [Asking of probing questions]: for participants' own connections between comments of other focus group members 4. [Asking a final or summary question] that draws on the discussion of the focus group, asking if there are any [final comments or questions] from the participants, and [acknowledging their contribution] **Characteristics of a good moderator** - Good knowledge of the questions of interest - Able to keep track of who is participating - Helps discussion develop momentum - Listens to the participants and adjusts accordingly - Remains neutral - Aware of body language - Makes sure points are understood - Observes group dynamics: making sure everyone feels heard through active listening, read participants and responses, engage participants that are being too quiet while dealing with manipulative, controlling or dominant participant Moderator guide - Introduction and introductory activities: icebreakers - Statement of the basic rules and guidelines to set expectations for participation - Short question-and-answer discussions - List of open questions designed to encourage engagement & potential responses to probe further; guide questions don't have to be asked in order - Descriptions of any special activities or exercises including the introduction of - Guidance for dealing with any expected or sensitive issues **Factors affecting focus group success/Group Dynamics** - **Intrapersonal factors**: what the participants 'bring' to the focus group in terms of who they are and their own experiences and perspectives: - Demographics: age, gender, socioeconomic status - Psychical characteristics: appearance, clothing style - Personality characteristics - **Interpersonal factors**: expectations about how others will act or behave - Cohesiveness of the focus group: the bond that the members feel with each other and the moderator, and how they begin to coordinate towards the goal of the researcher in exploring a particular topic - Compatibility of the group: the extent to which the members of the group have similar characteristics (homo- or heterogenous) - Social power: how much knowledge, information or experience particular participants are seen to have in relation to other - **Environmental factors** - Material environment: the size of the room and any distractions that might be within the room or visible just outside - Territoriality - Spatial arrangements/Setup of the room: how chairs are arranged in relation to the moderator and in relation to any visual props that might be used - Interpersonal distance: the arrangement of seating needs to be in line with how close participants might expect to be sitting to each other, something that might also vary in relation to cultures and the diversity of participants - Strangers vs. acquaintances: what kind of people are being put together, and how does that affect the interpersonal relationships **Techniques for addressing challenging participants** - [Rely on non-verbal cues] to make the point that the participant is being disruptive: e.g. holding up a hand or a finger to silence the problematic participant for a moment may make their disruptive behavior clear - [Shifting the entire group towards] [writing exercises] to answer questions has been shown as effective; when dealing with dominating participants; less engaged or withdrawn participants can be asked specifically to share their written responses with the group - [Addressing the participant directly]: indicating that you want to give everyone a chance to speak or that all responses are valid may be an effective way to minimize the disruptions **Ethical and Practical tips** - Focus groups can lead to the sharing of very personal information with a group of relative strangers - The limited control a moderator has over members of a group can produce situations in which some participants can offend or insult other members of the group - Respect and confidentiality should be at the basis for focus group participation informed consent document all members should sign before participating Lecture 4. Focus Groups \[Georg Simmel\] From a Dyad to a Triad: change from a 1 to 1 conversations to 1 to 1+ radically alters social context; less intimate and personal Socialness**:** focus groups involve group conversation and debate **The purpose of focus groups** - To collect multiple individual reactions simultaneously; to elicit rapid, individual-level feedback that researchers may value (collaborative data co-production) - Motivated by the economy of scale/Deceptively simple methodology - Large amount of interaction on a topic in a limited period of time - Inexpensive and efficient way to rapidly appraise or assess what people think about a question - "soundbite" quotations to illustrate themes (ignores the complexities of a focus group) **Units of Analysis in focus groups** - The individual: statements made by individual members during the course of a focus group - Illustrate key findings from the analysis - The group: determine group consensus or the level of agreement on phenomena - Phraseology used: how does the group phrase things? - Group makes this possible because burden of high-effort cognitive thought is shared, participants can work together to tackle complex ideas and concepts - The interaction: how people are interacting with each other: are they agreeing are they building into a certain answer or are they raising particular struggles, tensions, and issues ([group effect!]) - Often overlooked or assumed - Attention focused on back and forth between participants - Answers build and evolve - Shows nuances and complexities that may not otherwise be anticipated Dumitrica & Pridmore -- Working with Textual and Material Data **Types of data** - **Primary data**: generated by the researcher through interaction with the social phenomenon or group under investigation - **Secondary data**: have been produced for reasons other than research. They exist 'out there' in the social world and can be submitted to analysis and interpretation; already existing data - News stories, policy reports (important source of information about the vision of bureaucratic and political elites), political speeches, white papers (reports or guides on a particular topic produced by governmental organizations or by corporations to outline or market their position or approach to an issue), magazines **Material data**: human-made artefacts that are implicated in the construction, maintenance, and transformation of social identities (e.g. objects in the kitchen) - The objects in our lives are rich in symbolic meaning because they have been shaped by social processes: - Encoding a preferred meaning into a text, which audience decode by making sense of according to their own abilities and preferences: they inscribe their own meaning into these texts; [context] - Translation: the process whereby the many actors involved in the production of a technological artefact -- designers, engineers, marketing departments, policy-makers, and users -- transform their own goals and ideas into artefacts **Texts**: literary and visual constructs, employing symbolic means, shaped by rules, conventions and traditions intrinsic to the use of language in its widest sense - Something that is imbued with meaning and thus participates in the collective process in construction of reality - Texts not as strings of letters but as form of communication about social life: meaning-making: - [The individual as product of socialization]: your upbringing, education, social status, geography and more collectively shape the way you see yourself and the world around you - [Shared repertoire of symbolic resources that you are familiar with]: words of a language, cultural practices, folklore, \'key\' legends and stories\ (e.g. Beyonce or Greek myth Prometheus) - [Specific context surrounding the meaning-making process]: understanding the world is dependent on the specific situation and environment it takes place **Data collection:** 1. [Locating data]: deciding on the type of texts you need to answer your research question 2. [Determining a corpus of texts, and if necessary, sampling]: 3. [Locating the data]: where did you find the texts 4. [Retrieving data]: gather the data and store it, so that you can begin the analysis process 5. [Data-immersion]: decide on unit of analysis; what will be analyzed in each text ! Always explicitly provide and justify your choices! ! Reflexivity **Strengths of using textual and material data** - [Unobtrusive]: does not disrupt normal everyday life of people; data has been produced for purposes other than research and the researcher played no role in the production process - [Easily accessible] - Provides evidence of what people 'do': as quite often what people say and what people do turn out to be quite different from each other - Evidence from multiple voices: if you study the objects of everyday life (say, the objects populating kitchens), you may be able to capture multiple voices, particularly those of the less privileged or of those whom go unobserved **Weaknesses of using textual and material data** - The meaning of particular sets of secondary data varies with time and place, making the process of interpretation more difficult - Identifying and showing the meaning of some secondary data can be difficult if they do not 'speak back' to us - Research on the interconnections of materiality and everyday (social) practice can be time consuming Dumitrica & Pridmore -- Data analysis and Interpretation: Introduction Iterative nature of analysis and interpretation: ethnographic research, interviews, focus groups, case studies and content analysis should be evaluated, possibly redirecting towards noteworthy trends and practices or unexpected perspectives that your data begins to highlight Raw data: unorganized collection of relevant information; can include both primary and secondary data **Data analysis**: the process of ordering data according to a prior logic by first breaking down this data into relevant elements - Examining data in detail and then organizing this data to effectively answer a research question - [Data reduction]: sorting and clustering **Data interpretation**: the re-arranging the elements and ordering of data through a process that moves from more concrete understandings (mostly descriptive) to more abstract ones that serve to enhance or develop some theoretical model - Highlighting key findings within research to explain what is significant about them and how this may shift, change, affect or influence perceptions of the social world - Asking the 'so what' question - [Data expansion]: context, expertise, reflexivity - Takes time! Involves interpreting emotions, experiences, understanding and connections in relation to the wider social context and the relevant social dynamics in which they appear **Three tests of data sufficiency** - Taken-for-grantedness: when you are no longer surprised by your participants actions or comments, you take what you see or hear for granted; you no longer need to follow up or need to look again because you already know what is going on; refers to data itself - Theoretical saturation: new data is no longer producing significantly new or different theoretical insights; refers to analysis process - Heightened confidence: you feel increasingly confident in the richness of your data because you have heard or observed a lot of different things and have started to see patterns **Three important features of qualitative analysis and interpretation** - Immersion: going over the data numerous times - Iterativity: fine-tuning with each new iteration - Reflexivity: questioning your own role in the analysis and interpretation Immersion into data may impair your perspective: becoming blind to what is really important, only focusing on details to the exclusion of the bigger picture, or finding it impossible to connect those details together Combat this by: - Taking a break from your work - Talking to other people about your project, findings, and doubts - Go back to your literature and theoretical framework for help in guiding your attention to the aspects and concepts within your data that are of most importance Module Rhetorical Analysis **Rhetorical analysis**: tools best suited for identifying how a communicative message and its authors seeks to have an impact on its audiences (how persuasion is achieved) - The question of how authors and their texts send their message across in a [persuasive] manner; how texts seek to convince the audience - The *composition* of text, not the actual impact of those texts on audiences - Draws on rhetoric: the art of persuasion - Works well for text with persuasive intent: electoral campaigns, public speeches, advertisements, editorials/opinions pieces, deliberation forums or meetings **The three pillars of rhetorical analysis** - Logos/rational reasoning: the structure of the argumentation (premises and conclusions, missing elements, proof, examples?), [reasons] - Pathos/emotional appeal: the use of [emotions] - Ethos/reputation of the speaker: the mechanisms through which the speaker builds and invokes their [credibility] **Conducting Rhetorical analysis** 1. Read the text and carefully assess words and phrases, visuals, sentence structure, the use of figures of speech, the use of taken for granted knowledge or practices, punctuation, layout, etc - Clarify the author - Clarify what the communicated main message is - Clarify who the intended audience is 2. Read the texts again using the pillars 3. Interpretation: consider how the details of your analysis relate to the context of the text **Additional tools that can enhance a rhetorical analysis** - Keywords and repetitions - Specialized terminology: e.g. not too medical - Multimodal analysis: the composition of the image - Context Lecture 5. Material and Textual Data **Qualitative content/textual analysis**: umbrella term: method of working with texts or secondary data - Semiotic analysis, Rhetorical analysis, Narrative analysis - Thematic analysis, CGT analysis, Discourse analysis - Used when you want to understand the production and circulation of meaning within society; about language, what it represents and how we use it to make sense of our lives **Epistemological assumptions** - Building on a constructivist paradigm: language doesn't just describe social reality but constructs it - Meaning-making process of author and meaning-making patterns considered legitimate in a society: they help uncover how meaning-making and social arrangements reinforce each other; it is always context-dependent - Meaning is not inscribed forever in a text or object: meaning is a function not just words or symbols, but of their interaction with the context **Qualitative research requires** - **Transparency**: describing the plan in the method section; the reader knows exactly what you will do with the data - what elements of the data are important? Why did you focus on these elements? What have you done with these elements? - **Systematicity**: Doing the analysis in the same way across the entire set of data and according to a plan - how to ensure all data is treated in exactly the same way? Module Semiotic Analysis **Semiotics/semiology**: science of signs; a model for how signs and languages facilitate understanding - Proposes that the ways in which signs are put together and their relation to other works by selecting sets of meanings that we are supposed to recognize - Signification process: the process of understanding, of coming up with the 'right' mental concept unconscious: you simply know what signifiers mean - Two major traditions in semiotics: - Ferdinand de Saussure: continued largely by European scholars - Charles S. Peirce: continue largely by the American branch **Signs**: anything that is meaningful to us, have various meanings; e.g. hairstyle, gestures, architecture - Signified/referent: the mental concept that the sign invokes - Signifier: the form the sign takes (spoken or written word, photograph, etc.) - Denotative meanings: the standard definition, recorded in a dictionary, known to all speakers (e.g. rose as flower with thorns) - Connotative meanings: associated meanings, often known to many speakers but may also be more context or group specific, cultural and time specific (e.g. rose as invoking romance/passion/love or death/loss in some cultures) **Types of signs** - Icon: sign that bears a close resemblance to the referent; sign that represents what we see; e.g. passport photograph - Index: sign that suggests a causal relation; sign referring to another sign - e.g. smoke is an index of fire - Symbol: sign whose relation to a particular referent is arbitrary and culturally contextual, its meaning needs to be learned; e.g. logos for a brand **Arrangement of signs** - Texts/syntax: collection of signs that is put together to create meaning, according to a series of composition rules - is [socially situated] bond between signifier and signified: can change with time, speakers, or with the purposes of the communication act - Creates certain meanings by [fixing the chain of signification]: semiotics is able to bring forth the ideological/mythological work performed by text\ (ideology: set of ideas that justifies a particular arrangement of power and a particular distribution of resources as 'normal'); e.g. horseshoe as signifier, good luck as signified, sign as myth of horseshoe being lucky **Semiotic analysis** - [Useful when analyzing visuals]: although it can be applied to other media, (moving) images are the most common data analyzed with this method (e.g. images in advertising, electoral, campaign posters, magazine covers); commonly used by advertisers and marketers to understand consumers - [Useful for revealing the implicit meaning of an image]: from simple units of meaning to more complex ones - [Useful for showing how meaning-making works ideologically]; how it can mask inequalities, power relations, or social injustice - Depends on the analyst's knowledge of the cultural codes (general beliefs, principles, value systems, traditions, etc.) and awareness of the power arrangements of the social structures could be considered a limitation of this method - What signs are relevant? What actually is the smallest unit of analysis? - Semiotic analysis can only say something about the construction of meaning, but not about the reception: is the sign actually perceived like this? 1. [Identify signs]: usually recorded in a table; only a few images are analyzed in great detail 2. [List connotations]: to decode text, look at all the elements of an advertisement: logo, slogan, point of view, camera angle - Paying particular attention to how the co-presence of signified may 'fix' some meanings over others 3. [Focusing on identifying the ideological/mythological work of texts]: to show how a certain text presents its preferred reading as 'natural' Module Narrative Analysis **Narrative**: event (or set of events) that unfolds in time and involves several characters - \[Vladimir Propp\] **Common structure/formal organization**: 1. [Setting:] introduction 2. [Complication]: incident, followed by fight good/evil 3. [Resolution] 4. [Evaluation] 5. [Moral ] - Stories always *do* something: they perform identities by constructing narratives - All characters present archetypes: e.g. the villain, the helper, the hero, etc. - Ordering: every story we construct is a form of order events, characters, motives, reasons, etc.; involved in creating particular versions of the events able to do different things - [Chronological trajectory of the events]: the story, the structure - [The causal relation between these events]: the plot, the meaning - [Reliant upon social conventions:] wider social practices and shared ways of thinking; relies on cultural assumptions **Narrative analysis**: focus on the process of ordering that shapes the message being constructed - The most important question to tackle in a narrative analysis is: - The idea that a story is a form of ordering the world for particular purposes - Used to focus on storylines - Used to focus on how interviewees create relations between the events in their lives - Life-narratives/biographies: sub-school of narrative that focuses primarily on how people tell stories **Limitations** - Applying the tools can problematic: less formalized, less clear (what is the introduction or the setting of a story, what falls under the resolution?) - No ready formula for deciding which parts of the story are important **Conducting narrative analysis:** look for... - [Authorship]: who is the author? Why is this story produced? - [Structure of the story]: setting, complication, resolution, evaluation, moral - [Chronological sequence]: how do events succeed each other? - [Logical connection between the elements of the story]: why does something happen? What/who causes something? - [Characters]: the relationship between them, and the role they play in the plot **Steps** 1. Detailed analysis of the text: - identify clauses: simple sentences with a subject and a predicate - examine them in detail in relation to some of the elements above - identify the elements of the story, as well as their relation to each other: 2. Interpreting the implications of these details for the way in which the story recommends a particular message or meaning - take a step back and consider how these different elements connect to each other in creating a coherent narrative - Situate quotes within the larger story in the text - Examine the role of stereotypes and social conventions in the story - Compare the different stories through the lens of agency Lecture 6.  **Mixing methods**: combining the methods of analysis (rhetorical, semiotic, and/or narrative) - Why? For contextual reasons: e.g. to uncover multiple aspects of the communication and meaning-making process always back it up with explanation and provide (methodological) support - How? - [Staged analysis]: first analysis 1 (e.g. rhetorical analysis), then analysis 2 (semiotic analysis) - [Supplement the toolbox of one method with tools from another one]: perform the analysis in one go and apply all the tools at the same time Module Thematic Analysis (TA) **Theme**: categories for analysis which are then structured together to provide a clear answer to the research question - Captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set **Thematic analysis:** examining and converting research data to identify and report on key patterns (themes) within the data - Based on the process of coding in several phases to develop meaningful patterns from the data coding and categorizing - Iterative practice: moving from emergent category development *from data* to an application of key categories *upon data* - [Useful when you need to find key patterns in data] - [Useful when you have a lot of data] - Deductive: theory-driven: categories are developed based on an underlying theory from the field or the research question; themes emerge roughly along insights derived from the literature review and theoretical framework - Inductive: data-driven: the creation of relevant categories occurs through an emergent evaluation of the data; themes emerge from the data itself **Process** 1. [Condensing the data into themes]: - Data set is coded into 10-20 initial categories 2. [Expanding each main theme to capture its complexity]: - Run another careful examination of the data; a data set is coded once again, and new or expanded understandings of the categories are developed - !! Once you develop the themes, you need to go back to the data to capture the nuances, contractions, or contrast within them **Phases of thematic analysis** 1. [Immersion in the data]: reading and re-reading, accompanied by writing down initial ideas 2. [Generating initial codes]: coding all data 3. [Merging similar/ related codes]: placing them into larger categories (the process of categorizing) leading to the initial themes 4. [Revising and improving the themes]: refine each theme, develop clear definition of what each theme pertains to ensure you have not missed any relevant data snippets also pay attention to nuances, contradictions, and differences within each theme **Advantages of thematic analysis** - Flexibility - Suitability for large amounts of data - Ability to be used and developed by multiple researchers - Emergent focus on developing categories that go beyond individual **Disadvantages of thematic analysis** - Flexibility: reflexivity on the part of the researcher; concerns about reliability and verification of themes - Potential to overlook key pieces of data that may be outside the expected or developed categories as they are only found once or twice in a given data set Module (Constructivist) Grounded Theory (CGT) Rules for category building - Categories must not be forced on the data, instead they should [emerg]e from the ongoing process of data analysis - Any development of categories requires the researcher to employ [theoretical sensitivity]: the researcher must be open to seeing and reflecting upon empirical data material with the help of theoretical terms **Grounded Theory:** underlying ordering of ideas - [From the ground up]: emerging in relation to observed practices and phenomena instead of *imposing* a theory on a given research topic inductive approach - To argue against the necessity of developing grand and abstract social science theories & empirical research in social science no longer needed be about testing pre-formulated theories - Building towards new forms of theory - Simplicity: more systematic inductive process Positivist Grounded Theory - [Emphasis on emerging data]: seeking a pure and uncontaminated research process that derived from observations 'in situ' (in their original place and context) - [More objective version]: the data collected in the process of research represents objective facts about a knowable world - It is impossible for a researcher to truly eliminate all preconceived ideas or concerns about a particular situation or phenomenon: a researcher cannot approach a topic with a 'blank slate'/unbiased **Constructivist Grounded Theory** - [Emphasis on situatedness]: we are always influenced by our context; - [Interpretive portrayal:] multiple versions of reality exist; the research process; reflects the researcher and the participants' constructions of the social world, and that the researcher will be affected by the participants' world **Differences Thematic Analysis and CGT** - CGT process builds up to theory laden concepts later rather than reading the text through this lens right from the start as happens more in thematic analysis - CGT is less flexible and more systematic **Disadvantages of CGT** - Subjective developments of codes - Reliance upon researcher knowledge and effort **Levels of coding** 1. **Open coding**: initial categorization, focused on factual accounts of the data in shorthand form - In vivo coding: the practice of assigning a label to a section of data, such as an interview transcript, using a word or short phrase taken from that section of the data; an in vivo code uses the exact words or phrases within a text or from a respondent as the code itself 2. **Axial coding**: advanced stage of coding: descriptive code in which several open codes are clustered or categorized into some 8 to 18 axial codes - Freer and more open codes: while developing axial codes, you do not need to keep certain open codes connected to their original sentence/paragraph/image - Residual codes: codes that may only appear once in your analysis and seem to be outside the general orientation of the research and category building - Active descriptor: an adjective or adverb that maintains the potential for innovative and engaging understandings in the category building process (e.g. 'bright colors' or 'subdued earth tones' instead of just 'colors' 3. **Selective coding**: core categories or overarching themes; code that serves to *explain* the behavior of the participants or of the phenomena; guide for understanding the research and should provide the answer to the research question (2-4 codes) - Theoretical sampling: emergent understandings or theories require some ongoing testing or sampling to see if these emergent concepts were evident throughout the research data corpus (more deductive part of grounded theory) Intersubjectivity: there are a number of ways of analyzing and interpreting data that are based on mutual understandings and perspectives that have shaped our social world  Lecture 7. Thematic Analysis and CGT **Differences Thematic analysis and Constructivist Grounded Theory** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **TA** | **CGT** | +===================================+===================================+ | Deductive (inspiration from | Completely inductive | | theory) and inductive (the | | | researcher is still sensitive to | | | everything you see | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | More based on theory right away | Exploratory: bottom up working to | | | a theory | | Sensitizing concepts: theory and | | | concepts throughout analysis | Focus on literal/factual | | | description of content at open | | | code level | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | More open method | More rigid pyramid analysis | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Almost all codes kept | Codes can be discarded | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ Sensitizing concepts: concepts drawn from literature, use this to interrogate your data - E.g. RQ: student thesis on communication professionals in the oil and gas industry sensitizing concepts: climate change, greenwashing, social media controversies Module Discourse Analysis (DA) Discourse: models of the world that project certain social values and ideas and in turn contribute to the (re)production of social life - Meaning-making practices: ways of talking about discourse objects - a group of ideas or patterned way of thinking which can be both identified in textual and verbal communication and located in wider social structures - provides a set of possible statements about a given area, and organizes and gives structure to the manner in which a particular topic, object, process is to be talked about - Particular way of talking about a topic; shared and collective ways of talking present in the public arena **Discourse analysis**: umbrella term for a variety of actual practices of analyzing data; borrows from all the methods of analysis presented before - Trying to show which ways of thinking are present, and how they are articulated, in a text looking for *traces of a discourse* that is outside of the text itself - Constantly interrogating the relation between this economic framing and the wider political and economic changes in the social world - [Useful when questioning the social order:] when your texts are reproducing the social order or resisting them - [Useful when deconstructing prevailing social categories (ethnicity, race, etc.)] - E.g. understand how the discourse of nationalism/gender/race constitutes the very notion of nation/gender/race as a 'natural' category - E.g. analyzing the economic approach to higher education - What is being said and what is not being said in this text? - Identify and expose taken for granted narratives (underlying meanings) **Conducting Discourse Analysis:** Paying close attention to a text in all of its aspects (on sentence-level): - Semantic layer: the meaning of words, phrases, etc. but also the use of figures of speech such as metaphors or personifications - Syntactic layer: the structure of phrases and sentences - Argumentative layer: the arguments or the logic underpinning the text - Performative layer: what is being done by saying something -- for instance, claiming expertise, providing an excuse, etc. - the researcher has to be animated by a spirit of skepticism, questioning the very things s/he might be tempted to take for granted while reading a text - Discourse analysis looks for competing discourses within a text and identifies the dominant one 1. Map out the wider context of the topic 2. Focus on the role of power 3. Pay attention to how discourses are internalized **Questions guiding DA** - What assumptions (about the world, about people) underpin what is being said? - What terms or stories are used to construct meaning? - How does the speaker/ author perform a particular identity in the text? - How is the topic proposed, rejected, qualified, ascribed, or displayed? - What is emphasized as relevant (and what do you think is ignored, silenced)? - How is a position legitimized? And what distribution of (social) power is implied/ taken for granted in this position? **Advantages of DA** - Offers one of the most comprehensive approaches to meaning-making, enabling researchers to capture a text's multiple contexts and, in this way, to connect understanding to the larger social structures **Disadvantages of DA** - Necessity to become familiar with the wider theoretical work associated with the notion of discourse - Requires that you have in-depth knowledge of the topic under investigation -- including its history, its current developments, etc. - The process of analysis is often a black box: that is, the reader cannot truly follow how the researcher moved from the data to the findings Strategies to alleviate this charge: 1. Transparent protocol for analysis in the methodological section: which aspects of a text will the researcher consider and record while reading the texts 2. Detailed exemplification in the data analysis section: the researcher is expected to perform an in-depth analysis of a few relevant quotes from the Writing and Assessing Qualitative Research Research is about [discovery]: finding something new, unique, unexpected, or different **Four sources of tension that researchers should be aware of in the writing process** 1. [Qualitative researchers are always writing]: rather than thinking that the writing begins only after the data has been collected and analyzed, qualitative researchers should recognize that their writing emerges from a collection of writing; iterative nature of qualitative research 2. [Writing itself is a method of inquiry]: writing demonstrates and reflects on the ways we create, reproduce and transform social realities; research can be seen to both describe and enact the social world; it can shape people's perceptions of the social world 3. [Be sensitive about writing]: reflexivity, remain aware of how we are actively representing a particular understanding of reality through our writing 4. [Writing reactivates multiple identities]: intersection of different positions (participants, relationship with participants as a writer, responsibility to the persons that have requested or required this research) that have to be taken into account in your research document **Types of audiences** - **Area specialists:** people with expertise in a certain subfield similar to your topic; the people you will cite within the text and would be the ones likely to cite your work as well (when published) - **General disciplinary readers**: not focused directly on the topic you describe, but have a basic knowledge of the topic and approach; fellow classmates, supervisors - **Human science readers**: persons that are more generally interested in how this research might inform their own research, teaching or thinking on a completely different subject - Action-oriented readers: the people and organisations that are most interested in the applicability of your findings to particular settings; making your research into actionable activities (e.g. policy implications, business potential) - General readers: friends and family that decide to read your thesis; or, someone that happens to come across your topic; more general interest **Voice/Tales of writing:** what the text itself sounds like - Realist tale: researchers use the third person to convey a sense of neutrality, impartiality and objectivity - Confessional tale: Researchers use the first person to describe their own experiences and personal process to illustrate their research development and findings - Impressionist tale: challenging the assumptions and expectations of readers, usually highlighting how the writing itself may shift our own interpretations of the research subject Good qualitative research writing is about effectively adjusting your narrative presence to the audience or audiences for which it is intended, connecting with the reader(s) in ways that allow for its best reading **Four criteria for the assessment (trustworthiness) of qualitative research** - Credibility: plausibility; entails engagement with the research subjects, persistent observation of the context, triangulation of data, peer debriefing of the research process, and checking with the research subjects as to whether the findings are in line with their own perceptions and experiences. - Replaces the qualitative criterion truth value: confidence in the truth of the findings - Transferability: the importance of developing a detailed, rich or \'thick\' description of the setting studies so that readers will have sufficient information to be able to judge the applicability of findings to other settings that they know - replaces applicability or external validity: whether findings can be applied to other contexts - Dependability: transparency; set of supporting documents to demonstrate the research process and logic - replaces consistency or reliability: whether the findings be repeated with the same or similar subjects - Confirmability: reflexivity; - Replaces neutrality or objectivity: how have the biases of the researcher been eliminated - Need for Authenticity: Presenting research as genuine and real, as a personal experience of development, thought and reflection, significantly improves how the reader will see this as trustworthy. Lecture 8. Discourse analysis and Assessing Qualitative Research **The four dimensions of language (used in Discourse analysis)** - What: the content we try to communicate; vocabulary, stories, ideas - How: the syntax/structure of a sentence, chain of signification, story structure, chronology - What is done: performativity, causality, persuasion (e.g. giving a command to which someone responds, or salutations that reinforce social conventions) - Context Intertextuality: how meaning is constructed by drawing from and referring to other well-known texts, often used in semiotic analysis