Final Post

Hello,

I would like to share some information and ask some questions from Antaki et al. study. This study is very important for me because I am still struggling to figure out what the discourse analysis really is and why we need this kind of analysis. It really requires kind of deeper consideration for me. I think it is because I conducted some qualitative research before and analyzed the data using thematic analysis. Since during the discourse analysis we try to understand more how the participant(s) says what he or she (they) want to say, I was confused about how to separate a thematic analysis from discourse analysis. I think this study was really helpful because the study explore the crucial requirements for discourse analysis.

I think both in thematic analysis and discourse analysis, the transcription is just a first step that prepares the researcher for analysis. To me, transcription is more important in discourse analysis than thematic analysis. When preparing for my presentation last week, I realized that I put all the umm..s, uhh..s, and ahh..s into my transcription. However, I did not even use any of them during my analysis because it was not important for my analysis. During my presentation last week, I understood how all these can be important for my analysis. I can basically say that I am more clear now since I overcome my misconception about the use of any detail in an interview or conversation.

  

Now, I am more clear that a summary cannot be a discourse analysis because it is shorter and tidier. A researcher needs more detail about the discursive constructions. Otherwise, he or she can lose information. This is called as “under-analysis through summary” by Antaki et al. I think what I did before was a kind of summary because I was just trying to explore certain themes focusing on what the participants said. 

The second issue is about the researchers’ position taking during the analysis. I am wondering if this issue is about the bias that the researcher is making. We always try to distance ourselves from the participants in terms of sympathy and scolding. I can understand this issues but what about if we realized the participants’ sympathy or scolding for us as researchers shape the participants talking? I think it may not be a big deal but it is still a little bit confusing. At this point, the quotes can help us to distance ourselves from the participants, but my last question is about “isolated quotation”. I am confused about it. What is the difference between the use over-quotation and isolated quotation?

Finally, I am really glad to take this course. I really appreciated with help and supports from at first Dr. Lester and then all my classmates. Since I am still working on my research, my plan is to take all other transcription into account and convert the study to a discourse analysis study. I think this is what this class has contributed to my academic carrier. I am really happy with it.

Thanks,

About my Presentation

Hello,

This week, I will share some additional excerpts to make sure that I am on the right way. Actually, I know this Wednesday presentation will be a good spot for me get feedback from my colleagues, but I want to share something valuable during my presentation.

Before going ahead the excerpts, I would like to share what I am planning to do during my presentation and get feedback from you. Because I do not want anyone to be bored during my presentation.

Normally, I have around 9 pages transcript, but I am not going to share all. I will just divide them into some excerpts. Then, I will explain my study background with my research question about 3-5 minutes. Instead of individual feedback, I will try to get group feedback after 10 minutes discussion. Since I really need constructive feedback about which approach to analyze the data and initial findings, I will request my colleagues to provide feedback 10-15 minutes.

My research question is going to be:

How does an instructor discursively construct his/her beliefs for developing online teaching?

Also, I am wondering if you know some readings related to beliefs using discourse analysis.
I hope it will go well.

Excerpt1 ( Line 85-90)

… after they give them the criticism, and I think it's↑, I've just found it to be, um, you know, the feedback to be really, really helpful. 

R: Hmm-Hmm, OK. 

P: <Because it's not just me giving feedback>, it's:, you know, everyone, giving feedback to one another, and I, I mandate the feedback to where they have to give feedback to:o three people per assignment, and they rotate on who they give the feedback to, so.

My Interpretation

It seems that the instructor believe that students giving feedback to each other is important because it is helpful. Therefore, the instructor makes this kind of assignment mandatory.

Excerpt2 (93-99)

P: OK, so, it's a, it's ey portfolio course, but↑ they're building their own website, and so:, I wanted them↓ to: learn some co:de, you know, and be able to understand, um:, basic WordPress tags, and↑, some HTML and CSS, <but I didn't want them to feel like they had to have> ah: ↑ like a coder background coming in, like they, um, <they should be able to come into the course> with no, little to no coding knowledge, and, um:, get some confidence with code, um, <I didn't want them to come in and feel like they had to learn PHP>…

My interpretation

It is interesting to me that the instructor was making the pace of his speech slow down. I feel like his was trying to emphasize the importance of giving the students freedom in terms of selection of the tools.

Excerpt3 (158-170)

R: Mm hmm. Okay. What is, you know you you mentioned constructivist criticism? What's that? What what do you mean? 

P: Oh, so, I would say that, I encourage them to be as honest as possible  with one another, and so if, for example:, a student was using, um:, a color scheme that was really hard to re::ad, or, someone just thought that the color scheme was ugly, I would want them to say that, you know you might, and say it in a nice way, and just say, you might want to consider using a color scheme with better contrast, for: a, for example for persons that, ah:, that, that can’t see as well, or you might want to consider: moving your sidebar from the right to the left, you know, very specific elements that, um, that the person whose working on the template might not have thought of on their own. And if, and even when they think that, um, a classmate is doing a really great job, just giving them encouragement, and saying, you know, this part of your, um:, template is really great, and um:, ↑I just wanted to, you know, praise you for doing such good work. So. 

My interpretation

The instructors believes that when the students give feedback to each other they should make constructivist criticism. When he explains this issue, he usually uses example to make the issue more clear. I think he believes that some assignments can be lower than others in terms of quality. However, it seems to me that he doesn’t want to directly say this to the students. Instead, he prefers being “polite” when explaining the importance of politeness.

Excerpt4 (175-192)

R: You know. When you decide on how to set up online discussion, what was your consideration? You know like yeah

P: So um:, like why did I choose that tool in particular? 

R: Yes, and yes, yes absolutely yeah.

P: Okay. I think in part because I've used it before, and I thought it was:, it was a really comfortable way to go back and forth, because visually, you can, um: ↑ as a student, you can follow the progression of a conversation because they're threaded, you know, and they’re indented one under another, you can really go back and it's um: (0.1) it documents communication so that you can refer back to people's comments from before. And so it's kinda of building like a conversation archive, which I really like, and it's nice from an instructors perspective to be able go back and se::e how much a student was participating and be able to quantify that. Whereas, in a face-to-face class uh: you can make notes to yourself after class, but you never really have that sam::e ability to go back, you can remember what a student may have said in class, or you could possibly videotape it, but um: online, having a forum, you can actually go back when you're grading, and see exactly what the person said, and I think that's really pretty nice as an instructor or facilitator. And for students I think that, you know, it allows them to be um: very honest with one another, and also, um: ↑ keep track of their correspondence. 

My interpretation

I think in here especially after the line 184, the instructor is referring to all instructors. He is making a generalization to all the instructors who are teaching online. At this point, I believe that making empathy is shaping the instructor’s belief. 

 

Thanks,

 

Introduction to Analysis

Hello,

This week I want to think deeper about my research question. This has helped me to understand the importance of right research question. Otherwise, it is very hard to analyze the data according to discourse analysis or conversation analysis. So, first of all I would like to share my research question.

RQ: How does an instructor discursively construct his core judgments when developing online teaching?

My concern is not the action of “online teaching,” instead I am interested in the development of online teaching. Core judgment is a type of design judgment, which is related to the designers’ values, beliefs and thoughts that is more personal to the designer. Therefore, I consider the instructor as instructional designer. Actually, it is very interesting for me to see that I am focusing on online learning because when I did my mini literature review for this course, I realized that almost all the studies in my field focused on online environments. I hope I will both contribute to the field by conducting studies using discourse analysis and increase my understanding about it. So, I would like share some of the initial points that I found interesting and useful. Any of your feedback will be great for me before my presentation next week.

Excerpt One

(P is the participant, R is the researcher)

R: Yeah, how did you decide on the, the teaching online, you know, like what was your consideration when I when you, you know, think about that

P: Okay. Umm:, so, when I started out, umm:, before I was even teaching, <I was helping a lot of students with their portfolios>, and, umm:, they would come see me in my office, and I thought, you know, I'm able to give them a lot of, you know, good one on one instruction because they don't, um, they're not strictly bound by time, when they come to see me, you know, and it's very much ah: one on one(.) and so I started thinking, if I could offer that same level of um, you know, service to more than one student at a time, and make into like a formal thing, that, that students would learn a lot, and so, um:, I had the idea for the online course I suppose because I was uh, working on coordinating online courses for the school, and I started thinking, you know, wow, it's be really nice to teach online, umm:…

My interpretation: I think the researcher is directly asking the question in order to catch the instructor’s core judgments. At this point, the instructors’ selections of the words, such as “thought” and “I started thinking” “I had the idea”, show his core judgment. Also, I think it is important to emphasize the instructor’s self-confidence about teaching online because he indicated his intentions towards teaching online even before his started online teaching.

Excerpt 2

P: … And so, um, when I started thinking about the assignments, for umm:, the course, at first I started and I wanted to make it, like very open, because everyone's portfolio is different, and I realized that, um↑, I didn't want it to be, I wanted it to be technical but not too technical. So I, um, allowed them to each start with their own template that they would choose, and then umm:, develop it as they saw fit, and then, come to me when they needed help(.)

My interpretation: I think the instructor’s previous experience contributes to his consideration about online teaching. He is trying to take the students’ needs into account. Therefore, I want to say that the students’ needs shape the instructor core judgment, especially the decision of assignments and tools.

 

Thanks

First Reflections on My Own Study

Hello,

This week I want to ask a question from the readings and than share what I have about my study so far. I know patterns are important in a conversation. Turn-takings, laughs, pauses et. are all important. Actually, while I was reading, a question came up to my mind. I am not a native speaker. I am coming from a different culture. If I conduct an interview from another culture, how can I make sure that I am correctly interpreting the patterns special to another culture? For example, it is very difficult for me to interpret what they actually mean when someone laughs. I mean some people are more serious when they speak while some other was adding some fun into their speaking. I respect all people, but as a researcher I don't know how to solve this issue. This is my question for this week.

 
In terms of my own work, I am working on a 32 minutes interview that I conducted last year for my study. Actually, I conducted 5 interviews, but for this class I wanted to select one of them for analysis. Basically, I am trying to explore how an instructor who teaches online decides on tools and assignments when developing online teaching environment. This is a single case study. The instructors' decision on tools and assignments is identified as "instrumental judgment" by Nelson and Stolterman (2003). I am not still sure whether to look at all types of design judgments or the only instrumental judgment, which is my first challenge for now. The other one is that the interviewee is much more talking than me. I am wondering if this is a problem. Finally, I am not sure what to implement in my study, discourse analysis, discursive psychology, or just conversation analysis, and how to implement them. This is important because I should put them into my presentation. Briefly, I am not sure where to start. I completed Jeffersonian transcription including pauses, laughs, turn-taking, overlaps, intonations, and emphasizes. I think that will be great to have a meeting with you regularly until my presentation.

Thanks,

 

Power

I would like to start my post with a question. In Wootfit chapter, it is stated that significant price reduction is a cultural convention. What I understood is that this is discourse analysts’ perspective. Is this right? If so, how can these two related to each other? And also how can a “laughter” be an evidence of significant price reduction? I am asking these questions because they seem very important for those who are interested in discourse analysis. It was really interesting me to learn something from my life in Turkey has meaning. When we go outside for shopping, my mother usually intend to see what happens when some people gather around something. She says that there should be something interesting and cheaper there. This situation is part of our daily life,  but after I read it is a common practice among market pitchers, I thought even these kinds of situations should have meaning. I am wondering if it is just a result of observations or discourse analysis or maybe conversation analysis because Clark and Pitch approached to selling as interactional achievement rather than economic acts. Clark and Pitch is demonstrated this interaction’s outcome as power. So, if the outcome of the interaction is power, what is relationship between power and discourse? Because we are trying to construct meaning from interactions. Therefore, I think discourse should also be an outcome of interactions. Also, according to Jorgensen and Phillips, “most discourse analysts (and probably most researchers in general) would like to contribute, through their research, to changing the world for the better.”  However, I am wondering how discourse analysis research may contribute to practice in life or to practical life? For example, when I conduct a research on technology integration in Turkey, I can recommend something to the Turkish Government to improve technology integration process. I am wondering what kinds of contribution that discourse analysis makes in practice. Finally, I am wondering the relationship between reality and discourse. Is there anything that is discourse but not real?

Week 6 Reflection

Hello,

 would like to start from “factual discourse”. It is defined and explained in the Woofit chapter 5. However, I would like to start asking “what is the exact place of factuality and authority in discourse analysis?” I mean that when we conduct discourse analysis, what is the importance of factual discourses for our analysis? I am struggling to understand this point. I liked the example that Wootfit provides us. Gender, occupation, marital status and religion can be used to refer a person. Therefore, they offer factual references. I can understand that these are important for discourse analysis, but I think they have lack of true meaning as indicated in the context of rhetorical psychology.

In terms of Wiggins paper, I really liked reading it. I was interesting to see an analysis which include about 200 hours video and audio record. I know there is no need for coding everything, but it is important to transcribe all the records, isn’t it? At this point, I have the question of whether or not we need member checking for the gestures that are indicated in the transcripts. If we interpret gestures and try to construct meaning from them, how can we make sure we do it correctly?

My other concern is that discursive psychology (DP). I know it is related to cognitive processes, but I did not see a concrete explanation of it. Or I might missed the point. What is DP? Is it a paradigm, a theoretical framework, a research field, or another concept?

Week 5 Reflection

Hello,

This week was the first time for me to see that everything is not discourse. Maybe, I am wrong but in Jorgensen and Phillips chapter, there was an example of bridge. Building a bridge is only a physical action and does not include any discursive action. On the other hand, there was an example of schools and other social institutions in Luke’s paper. I just want to make sure that although schools and other significant institutions are also physical buildings, they are kinds of social contexts for human beings. That’s why they are identified as discourse or “constituted by discursive relations”. Also, as indicated in Luke paper, it makes sense to me that we should approach to the texts or interview data skeptically, which is one of methodological contribution of Faucault’s poststructuralism, to better understand the discourse. However, to what extent do we need to be skeptical? I think it will be very hard to conduct discourse analysis if we treat very skeptical. It will be very helpful to a little bit focus on this question because I think it is very important.

Also, I realized that I was arguing with myself to understand what the easiest way of understanding discourse. I think that the main point which makes me confused has been that the discourse is both constitutive and constituted, which is the perspective critical discourse theory. However, I don’t think there is something wrong with me because when we look at the history of discourse theory, there has been difference within the discursive actions of discourse theory. For example, Laclau and Mouffe stated all social practice as discourse while Fairclough limited discourse to semiotic systems such as language and images as indicated in Jorgensen and Phillips chapter. On the other hand, one important common point or concept of discourse analysis is “construction”. Even if some limits the scope of discourse, there should be a social action to construct meaning within the discourse analysis. I have another question at this point: I can understand how texts are important as Luke indicated, but what does Luke mean with “texts position and construct individuals”?

I would like to comment a little bit on Vasconcelos article. When I read the article, I thought it will be discourse analysis paper which includes interviews. However, after reading the research questions, I thought that the questions cannot be answered by only interviews. It seems to me that the study looks very strong in terms of methodology and data collection tools. Furthermore, it is not usual to encounter with a study which has more than one theoretical or conceptual framework in my field of IST. Vasconcelos study is strong in terms of both methodology and theoretical framework. I think it can help us to see how it is possible to emerge different methodical perspectives, including discourse analysis.

 

Thanks 

Week4: Illustration of Discourse Process

Hello,


While I was reading this week papers, especially Jorgensen and

Phillips chapter, I tried to illustrate discourse process with all the

parts and constructs. I will share with you all below. However, I

first want to what I have learned from this week readings.

•  Structuralism is "the theory that elements of human culture must be understood in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system or structure."
• Marxism is "a worldview and method of societal analysis that focuses on class relations and societal conflicts."

Laclau and Mouffe developed their discourse theory in regard to combination and modification of those two "theoretical traditions." Actually, I am wondering whether or not "Marxism"  is a theory. I mean that what is the relationship between worldview and theory? It is also interesting to me that someone who has political theorist background are interested in discourse theory. I am wondering if we can discuss this issue. Also, in what fields is discourse analysis is more popular? Furthermore, Laclau and Mouffe are interested in Marxism. How is Marxism related to Discourse Theory? I think this week class will help me to understand these issues. It was really interesting to me the issue of fixation for different signs. It really makes sense to me that we usually intend to fix the meaning of signs trying to relate them to other signs. This point is important because according to discourse theory, we cannot ultimately fix the meanings, where the discourse analysis start appearing. Now, I would like to share my illustration of constructs in regard to discourse analysis.

 

 

According to the picture above, everything in discourse is signs (moments) that acquire their meanings from the nodal points around discourse since we try to relate the signs to other nodal points. Therefore, I indicated the nodal points around discourse as "yellow circles". If we try to fix the meaning of a sign but we do not succeed, and if we are not sure where to put a sign (i.e. into medical treatment or alternative treatment), the construct is called as "floating signifiers", which are triangles with red color. Those floating signifiers are also nodal points. Therefore, our purpose is to make a relationship between those nodal points. This attempt is called as "articulation" which is shown as two ways green arrow in the picture. On the other hand, if we are sure that the meaning of a sign is not related to any nodal points in discourse that means if the discourse excludes any signs, those signs are called as "elements" within the category of "the field of discursivity". I think this is my understanding, but I really would like to hear from you all and discuss in the class on Wednesday. Maybe, I am wrong, or we need to change the picture.

 

Finally, I have some questions:

 

1. Can we say that if we are doing discourse analysis, we are going to have only one meaning for a sign, and the other possible meanings can be categorized into the field of discursivity?

 

2. Also, I am not sure what does "the discourse can never be so completely fixed" (pg. 28) mean? What I understood is that in order to be able to call a sign as "discourse", we first have to fixed the meaning.

 

Thanks,

 

 



Reflection for the third week

Hello everyone,

I would like to start this week’s blog from Wootfit chapter 3. I was struggling to understand the fact that discourse analysis has not made a significant impact within sociology in general as it made within the sociology of scientific knowledge. I am wondering whether or not one of the reason is that individuals do not usually realize what other people says. If so, I can basically argue that people do a quick discourse analysis during a conversation by constructing the meaning from other’s words. That is why I am still confused about this issue. On the other hand, I can understand how discourse analysis can make a significant impact within the sociology of knowledge.

Also, I am wondering why qualitative focus on discourse might be failed to engage within North American sociology. Wootfit claims that the reason is that North American sociology more focus on quantitative approaches to sociological research. Even if there is a difference between the foci, can’t we say that a radically qualitative focus on discourse cannot be applied to North America? Are those foci general or just applicable to certain places?

 

It is helpful for me to see that Gilbert and Mulkay’s and as followers of them Potter and Wetherell’s explanations of the root of discourse analysis. They pointed out some principles. I would like to focus on only one of them which is parallel to the point I made above. They claimed that the same phenomenon can be described in several different ways. At this point, I have another question:

What are difference between the Potter and Wetherell’s account principles of discourse analysis, especially for the first 5 principles? Because they look almost same to me.

I am also wondering what the relationship between discourse analysis and attribution theory is. Or, what is the state of discourse analysis within the attribution theory?

I also want to a little bit mention some important points for me from other readings this week. One of the discussions from last week was the difference between conversation analysis and discourse analysis. Potter starts with a brief explanation. I think this is the point what the difference is. According to Potter, discourse is “much of what we do with others we do by way of conversation, phone calls, letters and instructions. Potter, like Wootfit, is also pointing out that discourse analysis is a central task for social science. I think this is a very big claim. Does that mean the researchers in the field of social science should conduct discourse analysis? My other question from Potter’s reading is what “discourse is situated” means. Furthermore, I am challenging to understand the difference between “action-oriented” and “constructed”. To me, they seem quite similar.

Finally, I would like to share some points from Lester and Gabriel article. I think I am more clear than last week in terms of what discourse really means. I think one of main question I can ask is as follows:

Is there any relationship/what are the difference between “construct of intelligence” and “discourse of intelligence”? I am confused about these phrases because as we discussed last week, discourse can be thought as “constructing meaning”. It seems to me that there should be similarities between those two phrases.

I am really looking forward to discussing in class on Wednesday.

Thanks,