NVivo by Chance

As I mentioned before I find Coding and data analysis one of the most exciting parts of the research process. Writing up my findings is a totally different story!

As I mentioned,  I was already familiar with NVivo and have access to it for my work (not that we have ever used it, but I guess that's why grant money is great!) Like so many packages there is such a plethora of tools available I've just begun to scratch the surface. I'm looking forward to experimenting with the image coding as it will relate directly to my methodology and I'm also curious if I can link images to transcription codes since the idea of linking has stuck with me. I think the matrix function in combination with classifications might prove useful in this regard - but again I'll have to experiment further. (Maybe for my article/skill builder?)

This week's readings and class have forced me to think more critically about my use of NVivo as my CAQDAS package of choice. In reality the decision was made for me and I wonder if left to my own devices would I have chosen a different package? Does NVivo truly fit my purpose or have I made my purpose fit NVivo? Working in a case study format with a predefined theoretical framework does, in a sense, lend itself to the a priori set up of NVivo - that and the fact the I've traditionally done the first round of data analysis manually to identify any additional themes which might become child nodes to my predetermined parent nodes. Also, for my dissertation I will conduct a series of four case studies so I can see the matrix function as a valuable tool. But I'm interested to see what Atlas.ti and MaxQda have to offer.

Back in the Sadle

As I sat down to write my reflections on this week’s readings I was struck by how long it had been since I formally reflected on the use of digital tools. Then it dawned on me, like the proverbial ton of bricks – I had completely forgotten to write my response to class March 11^th! I don’t know if it was the rush of wrapping up loose ends and wedding presents in anticipation of my trip out East or a subconscious way of asserting my not so hidden dislike of transcription. Either way, I feel terrible as this is something relatively out of character for me! With this said, I didn’t avoid all thoughts of digital tools and qualitative analysis over the break. In fact I attempted to work on my second skill builder – to relatively disastrous results.  I’ll be working on this project over the coming weeks and hopefully at least my analysis of Text to Talk apps will work out.

So, on to the subject at hand… Coding!

As much as I dislike transcribing I actually really enjoyed coding. What I really like about coding is seeing everything come together and working to draw the larger connections. I enjoy stretching my imagination to identify themes and trends in my interviews and even don’t mind attempting to connect the findings to larger theoretical frameworks presented by established researchers. In fact the coding process might actually be my favorite part of the research process!

Though much like other aspects of my previous research experiences I have to admit I’ve not given my methods too much thought. Coding for me has been a relatively intuitive experience. As I transcribed and edited my transcriptions I would identify some emergent findings that I would later use to develop what Saldaña would define as descriptive codes. From there I’d get down to the business of rereading the transcripts and categorizing certain passages and coding within these passages – however if I’m being completely honest I probably “lump” my coding, avoiding the more nuanced coding described as splitting (p. 19).

Even with this admission after reading both Konopasek (2008) and Saldaña (2009) I feel as if I need to be more precise in my decisions, less holistic in nature. I consider myself a pragmatist and was grateful to see that Saldaña incorporated this belief into the Coding Manual. The acknowledgement of using the right tool for the task at hand is refreshing and I would hate to be tied to any one particular set of tools. I’ll likely check out the text further for some advice and guidance on establishing a coding schema for my dissertation.  

Embracing the Suck*

During my time at IU I’ve transcribed for my advisor and for a few of my own projects and by the end of each recording I’m relatively numb both physically and mentally. So I approached this week’s readings with a mix of excitement and trepidation. Would the secrets to painless transcription be revealed, would I learn the magic trick to transform my participants’ words into text on the page ready for my analysis and coding? Or would my deepest fears be confirmed. There is no trick, you just have to embrace the suck* and get through it, wrist cramps, blurred vision, and all. My conclusion after finishing this week’s readings? It’s a bit of both. Transcription is a necessary evil, but one, that when viewed as an initial component of the analysis is essential to the research process.

Some thoughts on the readings:

I’ve never thought deliberately about transcription. I simply attempted to place my participants’ words on paper – I didn’t include infliction or reference facial expressions. I did include laughter but, after about my 1,000^th “um” and 250^th “like” I omitted all backchannel utterances for my sanity! So, without thought I’d been conducting gist transcription, more particularly condensed transcription (Paulus, Lester, & Dempster, 2013). For my next round of transcriptions I will likely enhance my transcriptions to include hyperlinks to the actual audio and video as a way to increase the transparency of my findings and to hopefully enhance my data analysis (Markle, West & Rich, 2011; Paulus, et al. 2013). I’m thinking about a lot of other things with my transcriptions, but this is at the surface now.

Another aspect of transcription I’ve never truly thought about is the interpretive process of taking another’s words and placing them on paper. Hammersley (2010) describes this beautifully when he says, “What is meant by the constructional character of transcription is that a whole variety of decisions are involved, and that none of these is open to a single rational solution, so that there cannot be one correct transcription of any stretch of audio- or video-recording” (p. 556). So it is up to the transcriber to make some pretty serious decisions about the text produced. This is complicated if the transcriber is different from the person who conducted the interview who might be different from the researcher or research team as several layers of interpretation are applied to one moment in space and time. (Yup, Doctor Who reference dropped right there.)

Also, I found Johnson's study and ultimate conclusion on the use of voice recognition software troubling. He set out to determine which was more lucrative in terms of time spent and accuracy in transcription – voice recognition software or traditional listen/type methods. Johnson found that the traditional listen/type method was 14% quicker with greater accuracy. However, I was bothered by his methods. The experiment only included a comparison of ONE 17 minute recording which I feel is too small of a sample to support such a claim! In addition Johnson first transcribed the interview using the voice recognition software and then used the listen/type method. It is possible that the additional exposure to the data – hearing, speaking, reading for errors and then re-listening to correct errors increased his familiarity with the transcript which might have increased his typing time when conducting the second part of the experiment. The fact that these relatively obvious concerns were not mentioned is a glaring omission which makes me question the validity of his findings. While Johnson does find both methods equally dull (which I don’t question), his ultimate conclusion that his preferred transcription method would be to have a graduate student do it for him using a mix of voice recognition and listening/typing is relatively trite and contradicts statements made in his introduction related to the significance of conducting your own transcriptions as being a key component in ensuring the proper tone and intent of the participants is captured.  

Finally, it was nice to see some discussion of the different resources available. I'm curious to experiment with some of the different methods mentioned.  I’ve used Express Scribe before, but didn’t find it that much different from simply playing back a recording at reduced speed and typing. Playing recordings at reduced speeds takes a little getting used to. I always feel like I’m listening to drunks talk about history which, if you’ve seen Drunk History, is relatively amusing and far more interesting than transcribing. (Viewer discretion is advised!) 

*Embrace the suck: A military term that refers to a bad, seemingly pointless situation that you have no choice but to deal with. Often you are advised to just get on with it and are even encouraged to make the most of the situation. For more on this term check out this NPR Morning Edition interview with Austin Bay. 

Me embracing this weekend's suck - to the best of my abilities.

How to embrace the suck. First, acknowledge the negatives. This is the easy part. Negatives - Reading and writing this in a hotel room knowing that I'm losing an hour of sleep tonight and have to sit through a full day of briefings tomorrow followed by a three hour drive home, oh and I missed a friends birthday celebration. Next identify the positives and try really hard to convince yourself it all evens out. This is the not so easy part. Positives - They pay me, no tax on alcohol, Yuengling Lager, I'm in Ohio now, not New Jersey and I'll be home in time for Walking Dead. The briefings are a one time thing and next month I'll start in my new position - which is super exciting. Oh and I'm in a hotel room...with wifi.

Uncharted Territory?

I’m drawn to the discussion about online ethnography. The emergent nature of the field and even the debate regarding whether online communication should be considered text or an extension of one’s persona is fascinating. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future. I imagine as technology becomes more engrained in our society and the “digital natives” step into adulthood – thus entering the conversation, and the field of ethnographic research—there will be significant criticism of early digital ethnographers. Not unlike how we criticize early anthropologists for some of their practices or the ethnocentric narratives produced. 

I’m also interested in looking more at the writings of Sacks. It makes sense to observe participants in their space as well as asking them about the space! This holds true for my own area of research. If I am interested in informal learning environments anything I produce that simply reports on peoples’ perceptions of their experience in a museum or historic site is only part of the story. Sadly this is often the most/only reported part in research focused on history museums.  (Research in the areas of science museums is more established.)If I want to know how students lean at informal learning environments, it is essential to include observations of participants when they are at history museums or historic sites. As a way to increase the richness of the observations I hope to document the conversations or thoughts of my visitors as they navigate a museum space. This has been done in a small sampling of studies, but is not the norm. Typically, researchers ask the teachers what they thought their students gained from visiting museums – rarely do they actually ask the students and even more rarely do they observe/document students voices and interactions during the visits. (The work of Brenda Trofanenko is a key exception.) 

I'm just scratching the surface of this next idea, but as museums and historic sites develop and promote their online resources there will also be the opportunity to look at how teachers and students use online museums and the possible learning gains...more to come, maybe.

I’m thinking how technology will assist with this process and the best ways monitor and document visitor thoughts and actions as they navigate these spaces. I’d like to make this my next skill builder as I hope to iron out this methodology for my dissertation methodology. So if anyone has any technology ideas I’m open for suggestions!

Taxes, Adulthood, etc.

While I haven’t been able to complete all of this week’s readings prior to my Sunday blog musings (taxes, adulthood, etc.) I found the discussion of ethnography and computer-mediated communications exactly what I have been looking for as the authors addressed many of my previous concerns and of course raised more questions. The openness with which Garcia et al. (2009) and Hine (2008) spoke about the complexities of conducting ethnographic research was refreshing. Here are established members of the research community engaged in a conversation related to an emerging field of study. Each author was careful to point out that our connection to the internet is greater than ever and an integral component of many peoples’ lives therefore any social research should at least explore the effects of CMC – including the effects of exclusion from online communities.

I particularly found the discussion by Garcia et al regarding the positionality of the researcher in online communities enlightening. I continually grapple with the participant/observer relationship and in the cyber realm it is not different. Garcia et al. (2009) carefully outlined the many ways a researcher can enter the cyber realm and how he or she might best participate. Of course the resounding answer they established was that is it simply depends on the researcher and the context in which he or she is working! But that is the case in most researcher instances.

Hine’s (2008) discussion of defining the field was thought provoking and something I had never put much—any--thought to. This is also addressed by Garcia et al (2009) but in a different way. Each article mentions both the virtual realm as well as the physical being possible field sites for the ethnography. It seems Garcia et al. are caution the ethnographer to be careful and encourage that he or she predefines the field prior to commencing an ethnographic study. Hine is not as specific and if I read him correctly, he was speaking more towards defining the cyber areas for investigation. With the interconnected nature of our lives, particularly given Web 2.0 technology I could see it becoming more difficult to establish set boundaries for the field. Therefore the choices of what areas to investigate will greatly impact the study. I could also see an attempt to conduct an ethnography across several social networking sites overwhelming. Each article mentioned data collection and the accordance of increased access to the interactions. Ethnographers in a cyber-realm can easily archive communications and return later for analysis. This could easily snowball into the collection of massive amounts of data which if not properly analyzed might prove overwhelming!

More to come as I process all of this!

Garcie, A. C., Standlee, A. I., Bechkoff, J & Cui, Y. (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the Internet and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 38(1), 52-84.

Hine, C. (2008). Internet research as emergent practice. In S. Nagy Hess-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 525-541). New York: The Guilford Press. 

Here’s a picture of Vic – he’s enthralled with my research!

Lessons Learned

There was a lot to think about with this week’s readings and I found them a nice introduction to the discussion of data collection. I’m always amazed by the plethora of tools available and the unique manner in which others have applied these resources. So some thoughts:

1. Horan’s (2011) reliance of his iPhone to include recording, transcription services, geotagging etc was fascinating, but I kept hoping he would address possible concerns about how all of this technology might remove him from his observations and the data his conversation dealt mostly with the affordances and none of the constraints. (I understand this was in the form of a less formal blog post so the discussion of constraints isn’t necessarily required I’m just curious about his own reflexivity on this process – nosy me!)

2. Paulus et al. (2013) reiterate “methodological approach and research questions will shape the type of data collection techniques” utilized for a research study (p. 70). In addition to this my selected environment will have serious effect on the digital tools utilized. I’m not only interested in how students make sense of visits to history museums, but also how the visits affect their overall development of historic understanding. Two fold research focus – so that’s fun…With this I would love to try a museum walk along and have participants record their observations and thoughts while moving through an exhibit. The idea of linking this data to a GPS record might seem like a bit of overkill particularly in a small gallery, but it would be incredibly useful in matching up participant observations with artifacts of interest. Based on previous research debacles* I think this would prove useful in not only analyzing the experience, but in guiding follow-up interviews and connecting the data gathered from both techniques.

 

So I’m excited to read more about what others have done in synchronizing information across contexts but I’m also nervous about how to best analyze this information and of course how to best justify the use of these methods in my proposal and in resulting write-ups of research!

*During one of my initial inquiry courses I learned exactly how hard it can be to map out a museum visit and attempt to take accurate field notes--let alone attempt to make any sense of these notes and then connect them to audio recordings! In my overzealous innocence, I attempted to not only record the movements of three children and their parents through WonderLab, but in my analysis I attempted to match these field notes to the recording I gathered by having the children wear audio recorders. Needless to say my field notes were a hot mess. See below.

 Lesson Learned: Two sets of transcriptions + one set of messy field notes  = my own personal nightmare!

Getting Stuff Done - eh sort of...

I’ve spent the past week or so trying to identify my past aversion to utilizing online resources as a means to organize my research. Much like Dr. Lubke (prior to her transition) I’ve been living with an unwieldy organizational system that includes ever rotating stacks of papers, books, and manila file folders - I love a good manila folder – all marked and tagged with various sticky notes. My office and my apartment are cluttered and I don’t do well with clutter. I’m forced to keep transporting my research from place to place to place. However, I’ve resisted. There have been small steps towards using digital tools for reading and annotating. I have a Kindle, but so far its main purpose has been to kill zombies and keep me entertained when I travel. There is just something about interacting with the page that I find comforting. The ability to have three articles open and a book in my lap while I write seems authentic and true to the research process. However, change is an essential component in remaining relevant so I will admit my recent experiments with EverNote have been enlightening. I’ve uploaded my notes and PDFs for my current project into this management program and am finding the tagging options and search tool a life saver. It helps that I have two monitors where I keep EverNote up on one and write on the other.  While I don’t see myself going completely paperless I do foresee a greater integration of technology into my process.

Now onto the discussion of citation management tools which I’m really not sold on yet. When I was teaching I attempted to make academic writing a key component of my curriculum – the good old history term paper! My school preferred MLA so I taught MLA. (But, who uses MLA?) My insistence on proper citations drove many a student crazy (undergrads included) and I remember several discussions with them about the need to always review what a citation manager produced. Besides having a stupid name KnightCite was notorious for getting it wrong. My students’ reliance on this tool and belief in its accuracy was frustrating. This might explain my own aversion. When both Dr. Lubke and Dr. Vagara mentioned that their preferred citation managers didn’t always get it right I felt a bit validated in this aversion. Besides I find the process of creating references and a reference list somewhat soothing – strange I know. But then again I also find ironing soothing so go figure.