RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok
RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 389 completeness and self-consistency. These relate to a further criterion of ‘network utility’, the sufficiency of detail contained in a particular network. A third property that a network should possess is termed ‘learnability’. Communicating the terms of the analysis to others, say the authors, is of central importance. It follows therefore that much hinges on whether networks are relatively easy or hard to teach to others. A fourth aspect of network acceptability has to do with its ‘testability’. Bliss et al. (1983)identifytwoforms of testability, the first having to do with testing a network as a ‘theory’ against data, the second with testing data against a ‘theory’ or expectation via anetwork. Finally, the terms ‘expressiveness’ and ‘persuasiveness’ refer to qualities of language used in developing the network structure. And here, the authors proffer the following advice: ‘Helpful as the choice of an expressive coding mood or neat use of indentation or brackets may be, the code actually says no more than the network distinguishes’ (Bliss et al. 1983, our italics). To conclude, network analysis would seem to have a useful role to play in educational research by providing a technique for dealing with the bulk and the complexity of the accounts that are typically generated in qualitative studies. Discourse analysis Discourse researchers explore the organization of ordinary talk and everyday explanations and the social actions performed in them. Collecting, transcribing and analysing discourse data constitutes a kind of psychological ‘natural history’ of the phenomena in which discourse analysts are interested (Edwards and Potter 1993). Discourses can be regarded as sets of linguistic material that are coherent in organization and content and enable people to construct meaning in social contexts. The emphasis on the construction of meaning indicates the action perspective of discourse analysis (Coyle 1995: 245). Further, the focus on discourse and speech acts links this style of research to Habermas’s critical theory set out at the start of this book. Habermas argues that utterances are never simply sentences (Habermas 1970: 368) that are disembodied from context, but, rather, their meaning derives from the intersubjective contexts in which they are set. A speech situation has a double structure, the propositional content (the locutionary aspect – what is being said) and the performatory content (the illocutionary and perlocutionary aspect – what is being done or achieved through the utterance). For Habermas (1979; 1984) each utterance has to abide by the criteria of legitimacy, truth, rightness, sincerity and comprehensibility. His concept of the ‘ideal speech situation’ argues that speech – and, for our purposes here – discourse, should seek to be empowering and not subject to repression or ideological distortion. His ideal speech situation is governed by several principles, not the least of which are mutual understanding between participants, freedom to enter a discourse, an equal opportunity to use speech acts, discussion to be free from domination, the movement towards consensus resulting from the discussion alone and the force of the argument alone (rather than the position power of speakers). For Habermas, then, discourse analysis would seek to uncover, through ideology critique (see Chapter 1), the repressive forces which ‘systematically distort’ communication. For our purposes, we can take from Habermas the need to expose and interrogate the dominatory influences that thread not only through the discourses which researchers are studying, but also the discourses that the research itself produces. Various developments in discourse analysis have made important contributions to our understanding of children’s thinking, challenging views (still common in educational circles) of ‘the child as a lone organism, constructing a succession of general models of the world as each new stage is mastered’ (Edwards 1991). Rather than treating children’s language as representative of an inner cognitive world to be explored experimentally by controlling for a host of intruding variables, discourse analysts treat that language as action, as ‘situated discursive practice’. Chapter 17
390 ACCOUNTS By way of example, Edwards (1993) explores discourse data emanating from a visit to a greenhouse by 5-year-old pupils and their teacher, to see plants being propagated and grown. His analysis shows how children take understandings of adults’ meanings from the words they hear and the situations in which those words are used. And in turn, adults (in this case, the teacher) take from pupils’ talk, not only what they might mean but also what they could and should mean. What Edwards describes as ‘the discursive appropriation of ideas’ (Edwards 1991) is illustrated in Box 17.4. Discourse analysis requires a careful reading and interpretation of textual material, with interpretation being supported by the linguistic evidence. The inferential and interactional aspects of discourse and discourse analysis suggest the need for the researcher to be highly sensitive to the nuances of language (Coyle 1995: 247). In discourse analysis, as in qualitative data analysis generally (Miles and Huberman 1984), the researcher can use coding at an early stage of analysis, assigning codes to the textual material being studied (Parker 1992; Potter and Wetherall 1987). This enables the researcher to discover patterns and broad areas in the discourse. With this achieved the researcher can then re-examine the text to discover intentions, functions and consequences of the discourse (examining the speech act functions of the discourse, e.g. to impart information, to persuade, to accuse, to censure, to encourage etc.). By seeking alternative explanations and the degree of variability in the discourse, it is possible to rule out rival interpretations and arrive Box 17.4 Concepts in children’s talk 81 Sally Cuttings can grow to plants. 82 Teacher [writing] ‘Cuttingscangrow–,’insteadofsaying‘to 83 plants you can say ‘grow, = [ ] in : to plants.’ 84 Sally = You wrote Chris tina. 85 Teacher Oops. Thank you. I’ll do this again. ‘Cuttings can 86 grow into plants’. That’s also good. What is a cutting, 87 Christina 88 Christina Acuttingis,umm,Idon’tknow. 89 Teacher Who knows what a cutting is besides Sally Sam. 90 Sam It’s when you cut off a–, it’s when you cut off a piece 91 of a plant. 92 Teacher Exactly, and when you cut off a piece of a plant, what do 93 you [ then do with it ] to make it grow If you leave it–, 94 95 X Put it in soil. 96 Teacher Well, sometimes you can put it in soil. 97 Y And [ ] plant it, 98 Teacher But what –, wait, what else could you put it in 99 Sam Put it in a pot 100 Teacher Pot, with soil, or...There’sanotherway. 101 Sally Iknowanotherway.= 102 Teacher =Wait.Sam,doyouknowNo= 103 Sam =Dirt. 104 Teacher No, it doesn’t have to do with s –, it’s not a solid, it’s 105 a liquid. What [ ] liquid -, 106 Meredith Water. 107 Teacher Right. [...] Source:Edwards1993
- Page 358 and 359: COVERING LETTERS OR SHEETS AND FOLL
- Page 360 and 361: PILOTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE 341 Nove
- Page 362 and 363: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN QUESTIO
- Page 364 and 365: ADMINISTERING QUESTIONNAIRES 345 is
- Page 366 and 367: PROCESSING QUESTIONNAIRE DATA 347 B
- Page 368 and 369: 16 Interviews Introduction The use
- Page 370 and 371: PURPOSES OF THE INTERVIEW 351 appli
- Page 372 and 373: TYPES OF INTERVIEW 353 closed quant
- Page 374 and 375: TYPES OF INTERVIEW 355 One can clus
- Page 376 and 377: PLANNING INTERVIEW-BASED RESEARCH P
- Page 378 and 379: PLANNING INTERVIEW-BASED RESEARCH P
- Page 380 and 381: PLANNING INTERVIEW-BASED RESEARCH P
- Page 382 and 383: PLANNING INTERVIEW-BASED RESEARCH P
- Page 384 and 385: PLANNING INTERVIEW-BASED RESEARCH P
- Page 386 and 387: PLANNING INTERVIEW-BASED RESEARCH P
- Page 388 and 389: PLANNING INTERVIEW-BASED RESEARCH P
- Page 390 and 391: PLANNING INTERVIEW-BASED RESEARCH P
- Page 392 and 393: GROUP INTERVIEWING 373 an intro
- Page 394 and 395: INTERVIEWING CHILDREN 375 taking pl
- Page 396 and 397: THE NON-DIRECTIVE INTERVIEW AND THE
- Page 398 and 399: TELEPHONE INTERVIEWING 379 By mean
- Page 400 and 401: TELEPHONE INTERVIEWING 381 questi
- Page 402 and 403: ETHICAL ISSUES IN INTERVIEWING 383
- Page 404 and 405: PROCEDURES IN ELICITING, ANALYSING
- Page 406 and 407: PROCEDURES IN ELICITING, ANALYSING
- Page 410 and 411: ACCOUNT GATHERING IN EDUCATIONAL RE
- Page 412 and 413: STRENGTHS OF THE ETHOGENIC APPROACH
- Page 414 and 415: A NOTE ON STORIES 395 instruments t
- Page 416 and 417: INTRODUCTION 397 the physical s
- Page 418 and 419: STRUCTURED OBSERVATION 399 Box 18.1
- Page 420 and 421: STRUCTURED OBSERVATION 401 Box 18.2
- Page 422 and 423: STRUCTURED OBSERVATION 403 or event
- Page 424 and 425: NATURALISTIC AND PARTICIPANT OBSERV
- Page 426 and 427: NATURALISTIC AND PARTICIPANT OBSERV
- Page 428 and 429: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 409 Box 18.3
- Page 430 and 431: SOME CAUTIONARY COMMENTS 411 ob
- Page 432 and 433: CONCLUSION 413 the data mean. This
- Page 434 and 435: NORM-REFERENCED, CRITERION-REFERENC
- Page 436 and 437: COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED TESTS AND RES
- Page 438 and 439: CONSTRUCTING A TEST 419 achieveme
- Page 440 and 441: CONSTRUCTING A TEST 421 Select the
- Page 442 and 443: CONSTRUCTING A TEST 423 where A = t
- Page 444 and 445: CONSTRUCTING A TEST 425 true/fal
- Page 446 and 447: CONSTRUCTING A TEST 427 short-answe
- Page 448 and 449: CONSTRUCTING A TEST 429 demonstrate
- Page 450 and 451: CONSTRUCTING A TEST 431 (e.g. to as
- Page 452 and 453: COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING 433 H
- Page 454 and 455: 20 Personal constructs Introduction
- Page 456 and 457: ALLOTTING ELEMENTS TO CONSTRUCTS 43
390 ACCOUNTS<br />
By way of example, Edwards (1993) explores<br />
discourse data emanating from a visit to a<br />
greenhouse by 5-year-old pupils and their teacher,<br />
to see plants being propagated and grown. His<br />
analysis shows how children take understandings<br />
of adults’ meanings from the words they hear and<br />
the situations in which those words are used. And<br />
in turn, adults (in this case, the teacher) take<br />
from pupils’ talk, not only what they might mean<br />
but also what they could and should mean. What<br />
Edwards describes as ‘the discursive appropriation<br />
of ideas’ (Edwards 1991) is illustrated in Box 17.4.<br />
Discourse analysis requires a careful reading<br />
and interpretation of textual material, with<br />
interpretation being supported by the linguistic<br />
evidence. The inferential and interactional aspects<br />
of discourse and discourse analysis suggest the<br />
need for the researcher to be highly sensitive<br />
to the nuances of language (Coyle 1995: 247).<br />
In discourse analysis, as in qualitative data<br />
analysis generally (Miles and Huberman 1984),<br />
the researcher can use coding at an early stage of<br />
analysis, assigning codes to the textual material<br />
being studied (Parker 1992; Potter and Wetherall<br />
1987). This enables the researcher to discover<br />
patterns and broad areas in the discourse. With<br />
this achieved the researcher can then re-examine<br />
the text to discover intentions, functions and<br />
consequences of the discourse (examining the<br />
speech act functions of the discourse, e.g. to impart<br />
information, to persuade, to accuse, to censure, to<br />
encourage etc.). By seeking alternative explanations<br />
and the degree of variability in the discourse, it is<br />
possible to rule out rival interpretations and arrive<br />
Box 17.4<br />
Concepts in children’s talk<br />
81 Sally Cuttings can grow to plants.<br />
82 Teacher [writing] ‘Cuttingscangrow–,’insteadofsaying‘to<br />
83 plants you can say ‘grow, = [ ]<br />
in : to plants.’<br />
84 Sally = You wrote Chris tina.<br />
85 Teacher Oops. Thank you. I’ll do this again. ‘Cuttings can<br />
86 grow into plants’. That’s also good. What is a cutting,<br />
87 Christina<br />
88 Christina Acuttingis,umm,Idon’tknow.<br />
89 Teacher Who knows what a cutting is besides Sally Sam.<br />
90 Sam It’s when you cut off a–, it’s when you cut off a piece<br />
91 of a plant.<br />
92 Teacher Exactly, and when you cut off a piece of a plant, what do<br />
93 you<br />
[<br />
then do with it<br />
]<br />
to make it grow If you leave<br />
it–,<br />
94<br />
95 X<br />
Put it in soil.<br />
96 Teacher Well, sometimes you can put it in soil.<br />
97 Y And [ ]<br />
plant it,<br />
98 Teacher But what –, wait, what else could you put it in<br />
99 Sam Put it in a pot<br />
100 Teacher Pot, with soil, or...There’sanotherway.<br />
101 Sally Iknowanotherway.=<br />
102 Teacher =Wait.Sam,doyouknowNo=<br />
103 Sam =Dirt.<br />
104 Teacher No, it doesn’t have to do with s –, it’s not a solid, it’s<br />
105 a liquid. What [ ]<br />
liquid -,<br />
106 Meredith<br />
Water.<br />
107 Teacher Right. [...]<br />
Source:Edwards1993
Change language