No one lives in the world in general

 

Yeah like everyone else when I saw the word “Generalization” I was like . . . . . where is this going? But with the explanation of naturalistic generalization I got a little more comfortable to this idea. A natural and dangerous thing generalizations can be. I’ve tried to make it a point to be careful when creating and considering generalizations. Or using them to inform or make decisions.

 I was severely relieved to see an emphasis on context. “A case study, be it a community, a classroom, or a program, is not a separate entity but a located one, existent in some particular geographical, political and cultural space and time” (121). In my research, and my life recently, I have been growing to realize that context affects everything. It seems obvious now, but I hadn’t sat around and thought about it, or applied this realization to anything. When I started empowering and acknowledging biases is when I realized, a bias is a context.  A mental context created by outer influences, or outer contexts. What I am starting to dig into is this idea that ignoring or silencing context created some of the social injustices that have been swirling in my head. Dyson and Genishi happen to mention one

“[C]lassic writing pedagogy texts for young schoolchildren are silent on issues of language diversity and ideology. This silence may be in part a result of the singular role of children from middle-class, White communities in the initial formation of writing-process pedagogy. Matters of culture and language may have been inaudible in the data set (128)

Ignoring student’s particular context (culture and language) when creating and implementing pedagogy texts and practices has created the cultural genocidal machine that is public school.

My research project has a lot to do with my mental context. It was a tiny thing that started this hurricane inside my head. And it has manifested into this project and others. What I am searching for lies within my participants realization of their own context and what it has created inside them.

Generalizably Thinking

The final chapter in On the Case was dedicated to the role of generalization or the extrapolation, within the readers mind, outward from the specifics of an individual case to the relevant, applicable issues pertaining to the larger report or concern to which the study has dedicated itself.  As is frequently the case in my readings about the problems facing Narrative Inquiry as it attempts to find its place in an increasingly scientistic world I am struck by the inadmissability of the ineffable on both side of the argument. In short that the scientific/academic side will be doomed to an incomplete view as they insist on only recognizing the provable while the personal/narrative side is equally doomed by attempting to "dress up" that which cannot be apprehended as distantly or narrowly scientific.
       There are several well thought out attempts in the last chapter to elucidate how the underpinnings of detail and verisamilitude can be cataloged in retrospect to dissect the success of the "painting a picture" portion of the narrative. Try ing to explain in precise terms how something that seems true to one can be made to seem true to another. Or by what means a human mind my be persuaded to willingly engage its suspension of skepticism to stop resisting a narrative and let its character take up residence in the readers heart. There it is, using words to reach another's heart is cool but if you over focus on those words you cannot know what made them stick. The authors have attempted to systematize some thing the theater folks have nearly proved is best left in the shadows. And this because at a basic human level we have a great distaste for the idea of what makes us choose to suspend that skepticism. It is a joyful process and the keys to invoking this passive imagination are best wielded blindly so that the check on the potential abusability of this power resides in its being tied to belief. Stated sharply, we like to think that only a person who believes can convince us to change our minds or make them up.
      Thus the healthy role of the ineffable. A narrative will always have the potential to command almost too much power over a "properly" academic report because once the heart is engaged, there's no stopping its sway over the head. Science may be pure but its a head thing and the heart will win one way or another. This explains perhaps the great resistance to Personal Narrative, its detractors rightly and wisely fear the precedent set by letting it dominate, even if the case in question could admittedly use some personalizing.  Before this point, the personal was limited in its scope to realms where its power was clear, we stand now at a time where the personal strives to go where it was once unwelcome and it may be a step back to try and become scientific to force science to admit of its relevance. I submit that the only science-able fact about a personal Narrative would be the countable number of individuals who choose to stand up and say "this touched me."
     

Chapter 6 Dyson and Genishi

The last chapter of On the Case discusses how a to make a case matter. The concept of a propositional generalization, (assertions about how a studied phenomenon was enacted in a case), makes me think of biases and how they can be associated to them. The main focus of my blog is how researchers “translate” phenomenon into a direct application of their case study. When people generalize they may incorporate their biases, especially those they are not aware of.

This chapter was particularly challenging to me because it was hard for me to visualize children’s classrooms. The few parts that I enjoyed reading had to do with translation (mentioned earlier), interpretative validity (reasonable assertions), and expanding ideas. I also got a chance to revisit earlier subjects to include AAVE (African American Vernacular English).

Interpretative validity involves making reasonable assertions about the data in case studies. I interpreted it this way, so correct me if I’m wrong. My theory of identity and how people establish it has the potential to define and account for every living person. The four stages, discussed in my research proposal, can be applied to people who are engaged in any type of emotional development. For example, Marcia proposes that identity development is based on two factors: crisis and commitment. Crisis is defined as self-exploration and commitment is how committed the person is to the identity. Researchers can interpret how much self-exploration is needed to fit into one of Marcia’s four profiles. However, different actions/statements from different subjects may or may not be reasonable. This is where bias can become a problem is there is no collaboration about the case.

My research proposal includes the expansion of Marcia’s theory and relating it to pretty much anything I want to do. Fictional literature characters and real people are described. I seek to take this theory and use it to increase understanding of the complex topic of development. I can also demonstrate that science and creative arts are not in competition with one another. Thanks for reading!

On Generalization

The final chapter of On the Case discusses the making of generalized assertions based on the studied case.  As researchers, we want to move the discussion of the case from what happened, or the past tense to the present tense and what happens. Understanding the particulars of its social enactment, the case can be compared to the particulars of other situations.  In this way, "truths" or assumptions can be extended, modified, or complicated" (116).  When generalizing information from a case study, it is important to avoid trying to oversimplify the findings.

The text discussed that Heath situated her work against the backdrop of sociolinguistic theory and problematized generalizations or assertions made in other studies.  It seems that it is very dependent on the case itself, what kind of information the researcher should use as a backdrop to either make or problematize generalizations.

I really felt the examples of Ms. Yung's classroom and Madlenka (even if it was made up), really illustrated how to make generalizations without assuming that the generalizations were perfectly universal, nor were they simple dichotomies.   They were complex and rich with details.  The complexity of each situation is something that the researcher does not want to lose, as they move towards making generalizations about the field in which they are working.

10/29 Blog

The last chapter of On the Case is about “Making a Case Matter.” The sections of the book were generalizability, collapsing cases and blurring boundaries, last looks at data from Mrs. Kay and Ms. Yung, and a final discussion about going beyond the singular case, as the authors say, “researchers, however (unlike readers) seek to move beyond the specifics of a single case… to assertions about the phenomenon itself” (122). The main point that could be generally applied was that as interesting as individual cases may be, they should not be expected to be an exact practice for all future expectations. It is important that a researcher recognize what was specific to the particular case and what data can be extracted to have meaning out of that context and in others. The “details of a case” need to be “situated within broader assertions” so the researcher can “synthesize these experience so that common principles become salient” (Dyson and Genishi 131).

Much of this chapter focused on the imagined “Madlenka.” I guess they have been using an imaginary case so they could make everything in the case fit just right with what they have to say and they had the real cases so their assertions don’t just sound like make-believe. The authors say, “our imagined researcher Liz…aimed to construct propositional assertions that situated her analytic work on Madlenka’s block in larger professional discussions about intergenerational learning” to illustrate the chapter’s theme of generalizing (115).

They focused so heavily on Madlenka though. Perhaps they were using the “narrative” of this fictional multicultural example to illustrate rather than tell their ideas. Maybe they also wanted to take their research outside the classroom? I did enjoy reading about Madleka; she sounds precocious. But she was quite a staple in the content of the book. Perhaps you could even think of Madlenka herself as a generalizability. She can’t really be context bound (because she is not real); she exists to be a specific example of general principles of research and case studies. “Madlenka’s block,” Dyson and Genishi point out, is “like many sites in these times of mass media, transnational workers and refugees”; they make her general, and Liz’s research a generalized example of a story of a how a case study could unfold (119).

After reading this book, I certainly feel like I am more familiar with both case study based and educational research. If I ever need to take on a case study of my own, I will certainly refer back to Dyson and Genishi. If I ever join the academic world as a professional and not just a student, I could see myself needing to do this type of research. The stories of the cases of individuals were really interesting to read about and it made me think about how I might position myself if I am ever in situations that could be potential research sites like the classrooms mentioned in On the Case. 

Assertions

Reading this chapter made me think of my research proposal. After just presenting at a conference this past weekend, I really wanted to completely redo my entire proposal. The idea of adding my own assertions to my research was an interesting idea, and it wasn't until I read this that I was aware I was doing it. So, I began questioning my own assertions and asking myself what types of knowledge and experiences am I applying to my research. Mostly, I came up with my own invested interest in the topic, along with my desire to challenge and go against the norm.

I also found the coding of dialogue very interesting, especially because I am going to be doing qualitative coding in my own research. The way Dyson and Genishi present analyzing dialogue into data is fascinating and very applicable in relation to how one could use his/her own experiences or knowledge to find patterns in the research.

I would continue on about this subject but I am presenting tonight so I will let y'all hear what I have to say tonight.

Generalizations Can Be A Good Thing?

           I think that the word “generalization” caught me off guard in this last chapter. I tend to want to disregard any type of generalizations as weak inferences based on perfunctory stereotypes, and/or limited knowledge or experience. Whenever I encounter a particularly obscure generalization I feel most obligated to expose any ignorance. Of course, not all the time…just usually when I am involved in a discussion about sexism or racism, and someone says something reeeeally stupid. Like when a black guy says that he only dates white/asian women, because of black women’s’ xyz (usually an independent, emasculating attitude), and never admit that his attributing a personally negative experience(s) to all black women is just an excuse to not take any personal responsibility for the failure of his past relationships and the women he chose to be with. I think it bothers me more when someone presents a generalization as an absolute fact, and not a general truth based on limited information (or personal opinion).  

            Anyway, when I really thought about it I realized that generalization isn’t as bad as I thought. I know that I generalize as well, since it is something that all human beings do in order to make sense of the world. Our brains want to place people/things into organized, categorized compartments, so we can associate new information with old information we have already placed in these spaces. That way we can “become more sensible in our actions…[by] modifying, extending, or adding to [our] generalized understandings of how the world works” (Dyson and Genishi 115). This is what is called “naturalistic generalization” in the book (Dyson and Genishi 115).

            The “propositional generalization—assertions about how a studied phenomenon was enacted in a case” was a little more confusing (Dyson and Genishi 114). Unless I read it wrong, I thought that this concept was the whole point of a case study (in general I mean), because you are relating the study of something or someone in particular to something of a broader context. Isn’t that the goal of research anyway? I don’t know, maybe I am overthinking this. I do that, too. I was also confused with the statement about where lines between the case and the phenomenon are blurred: “The detailed work of case study research thus detracts from, rather than contributes to, the analytic, comparative construction of knowledge” (Dyson and Genishi 118). The example of a study leading to the implication that a child should run around unsupervised talking to strangers seemed to be a bit of a stretch. Maybe I missed something…

More on Dyson & Genishi

The sections on taking field notes and transcribing were both directly relevant to my research at this time, not only for my thesis but for assignments in other courses. For the TA practicum, we had to complete three class observations over the course of the semester. Our reports were not meant to be analytic as much as observational; that said, I took notes on EVERYTHING that went on in those classrooms, from the instructor's overall demeanor to the students' reactions. This process was always sort of tricky for me, however. I'm not usually one to take too many notes in class; I (like to) think I retain information better by simply listening. I feel like I'm missing something if I'm focused on my notebook and my hand is constantly moving. For these observations though, the entire assignment was based on all those details, so I left each class with pages of the most seemingly mundane occurrences. I think part of my struggle related to my restriction to descriptive notes and the omission of reflective notes; I like to sit back and look at what my notes mean, but since we were specifically asked not to analyze during these observations, I just felt like a machine spewing out details (what an image).

The section on transcribing was also directly relevant to my research because I just spent 3-4 hours on a plane transcribing an interview. I enjoyed this quite a bit: "Because many researchers have day jobs and feel both fatigue and uncommon satisfaction after a successful data collection visit, they find timely transcription to be only slightly more probable than winning the lottery" (70). Transcribing, I found, is not fun-- it's not difficult, per se, but incredibly time-consuming. My interview, which I held via Skype and downloaded some recording software to record the conversation, contained about 70 minutes worth of usable information (we veered off topic from time to time and I decided to only keep what was relevant (as discussed on p. 71)); I wound up with about ten and a quarter pages of single-spaced text. Yup. When Dyson and Genishi say that the rewards of transcribing are huge, however, I can see the truth in that statement (minus the carpal tunnel): it is very cool to have pages upon pages of conversation, basically rich data that directly pertains to my research. While some sort of voice-recognition software would have saved me literally hours of work, my immersion in the process allowed me to really reflect on what was said and gave me some leads as to how I could utilize this information.

Generalization!

The final portion of Dyson and Genishi deals with "generalization." or the application of the findings of a case study to other situations or larger issues. One thing I found very interesting was the idea that readers might generalize in "personal private ways" (115), which is something I had definitely not thought about before. I think a lot of the time I tend to get caught up in this idea of "data" as some type of sterile thing, although I think that's more a misconception that I perhaps had about quantitative research than anything. I liked this idea of the "naturalistic generalization," because it's something I really hadn't considered; I have never really thought about how my work might create different types of personal meaning for individuals. However, reading it here really made sense to me. Lest things get too amorphous and far away from capital-R academic Research, the book also strongly advocates that researchers put their findings within the context of other similar cases in the literature. This reminded me of a conversation I had with Graham while I was working on my proposal assignment. One element of my Literature Review dealt with was my negative opinion of generalization in the field I was studying (the specific situation dealt with quantitative research on the effects of television viewing being applied to the effects of "gaming"; I do not think there are great similarities there). He brought up the strong point that instead of assailing the practice of generalization, I should instead concentrate on the studies themselves. He also brought home a similar related point in his blog somewhere downstairs from here regarding honing in on our focus, and I agree. If we do what we're supposed to do as researchers appropriately and with fidelity, I do not think that this issue becomes thorny. To me, the only time generalization becomes inappropriate is when it's done unethically.  In fact, often it is within this area of looking to find generalization where we've seen historically seen "research" fail; for example, the Milgram  experiment and some of the other unethical stuff we've looked at up to this point. However, as Jose points out in his blog, another way things might get sticky is if we try and squeeze enormous "truths" out of a single small case, particularly  when we’re studying a particular group.  Certainly we've spoken many times in our class about "cultural" studies done by members of the dominant culture, as Jose rightly points out. In the particular case of our reading, however, I believe both authors handled this aspect of their work on Mrs. Kay’s and Mrs. Yung’s class quite well. Dyson's closing remarks regarding her goal to simply "add new understandings to the evolving dialogue" (130-131) is to me a perfect way to phrase how we should view our station as researchers, and how we might approach this contentious issue of generalization.

Once again Dyson and Genishi offer more great advice on effective methods for approaching and conducting a case study. Although the Research Design book that we read previously contains plenty of useful information for drafting research projects and papers (I found myself referencing it frequently while writing my research proposal for last week), On the Case provides examples that are particularly helpful to be because they demonstrate how to conduct research through example.

Chapter four of On the Case, "Gathering Particulars: Data Collection," offers more details on how to gather research for a case study and document it in a way that will be the most useful to researchers. Dyson and Genishi recommend that researchers always take field notes whenever possible because they are a "descriptive" way to "gather a few essentials of a case study: time, space, participants, activity" (63). Field notes enhance data collected through other means, such as audio and video recording, while assisting the researcher in remembering the details of context that might otherwise be forgotten, making them indispensable when the time comes to analyze data, especially if the case study took place over an extended period of time.

In chapter four, Dyson and Genishi also discuss the importance of the manner in which audio and video tapes are transcribed, a topic that had never crossed my mind before reading this chapter. The way that the data are presented should reflect who or what you are studying for ease of use, and field notes can be used to enhance transcripts by filling in details that might have been forgotten if they had not be documented at the time. They also recommend that researchers transcribe their own audio and video in a timely manner (which sounds like it could easily become a lot of work!) so that they will become better antiquated with it as they transcribe, killing the cliche two birds with one word processor.

Chapter five deals with finding meaning through the analysis of case study findings. This seems to involve readjusting the researchers lens mentioned in chapter one in order to discover the deeper meaning of the data collected and make assertions from these observations, Be reanalyzing the data repeatedly the researcher should (hopefully) be able to glean the major themes that recur and throughout interviews and observations and are interwoven to make an "analytic quilt" (100).

Dyson and Genishi also address when and how the researcher will know that data analysis is complete. Of course there is no concrete answer to this question, but I think we can reflect on the words of my Comp I instructor M. Herbert: "Start at the beginning, go to the end, and stop." One of the hallmarks of an excellent writer is to know when the story is finished. When the story we are writing someone else's, knowing when the story has become as complete and accurate as possible can be much more difficult. Dyson and Genishi offer advice on how to know when to say when: "Recurrence or repetition is often an indicator, as in the sense that we have seen a particular theme or category many times in varying contexts or with different participants." (110) Although the authors admit that a research project or paper may never truly be complete since there are always ideas or themes that could be explored, their advice on stopping when data analysis becomes repetitive seems to be a great method for knowing when to call the process "finished."

Generalizations!

Like Graham, I don't know if I'm comfortable with the thought of generalizations; but then again, it sort of has an ugly connotations. the chapter even begins with exemplifying the notion that generalizations are sort of a sticky subject in the field. Stickiness aside though, the chapter goes on to discuss the complexities of moving from particulars to general in order to fit studies onto a broader stage for conversation.
We first need to consider the following:

-To make the work more available in professional discussions, move what “happened” to what “happens”. This will make the particulars of your case easier to compare to other case particulars.

-Make the particulars clear so people can understand the context. Without specified context, there can’t be effective for learning. 

As the text goes on, we are warned about context and how it's imperative to understanding. In order to be used for effective learning tactics, research must be contextualized that suggest new modes of understanding and insight. We are also told to remember the complexities of everyone's lives and experiences. We situate ourselves through discipline, culture, space, time, and experiences; these things can bound us, and we need to be weary since no one lives "in the world in general".

These practices are then depicted in Yung and Kay's classrooms for further understanding. Both classrooms offer ways that assertions and basics can be moved to generalizations to bring findings to a larger conversation in order to compare assertions of other cases.

Strategic Essentialism- Don't do it yet.

A few weeks ago, I was completely against generalizing a case-study into a broader more global approach to everyone else. This is simply because so many individual experiences are undermined in creating those generalizations, which may or may not apply to every single situation— if at all. Now, I have learned of a new term “strategic essentialism.” I think Spyvak coined it in the 90s and I really like how it works.

                Every researcher- at least I hope- aims to help society by bringing to new light some type of issue that has never before been looked at or not investigated enough. With the research performed, the participants involved, and the time consumed, it would be unfair to everyone involved in the project if there wasn’t some information that came out of a particular case-study, ethnography, or other method of research because so much time and people power would have been put to waste. After the case-study, the ground gets extremely muddy in attempting to generalize from one specific person or phenomenon to an entire group of people or population. At this point, and even before the study, “strategic essentialism” comes into play for the researcher but most importantly to the group of people involved in the project.

                What a “strategic essentialism” entails is being aware that a researcher is generalizing to be able to conduct the research and understand a certain phenomenon or group of people. In taking this term and applying it extreme precaution should be taken; I cannot overemphasize how much should be considered because Spyvak has also shown some concern for the way it has been used. For example, a researcher may explore an ethnographic approach of a group of people in Africa within a certain region because of similar qualities. The researcher may coin them as indigenous or some other term but what exactly constitutes indigenous? Is this the researcher’s Eurocentric view of what the group seems to be or is there some other issues involved that would help him view that particular group as indigenous?  This approach should be taken carefully because generalizing can lead to stereotyping or even supporting racism.

Nevertheless, “strategic essentialism” helps in conducting meaningful research that is going to be able to help out in the global scheme of things. In trying to solve huge issues in the world, it’s an awesome tool to use.

Generalizations: Can't Live With Them, Can't Live With Out Them

               The last chapter of, On the Case, describes one of the most gray areas for researchers; generalizations.  Dyson and Genishi begin with the familiar Madlenka example in order to depict how each participant creates their own particular discourse according to a number of internal and external influences. These generalizations are produced by the participants as well as the observers or the researchers. The important aspect which this chapter discusses is how to entwine the generalizations of all who are involved with the experiment and formulate plausible explanations from this information.

               What I found most interesting and helpful with orienting myself as a reader was when Dyson and Genishi commented on the human nature of experiences. “This is after all, what we human beings do: We respond to present circumstances, at least in part, by relying on the relevance of past experience.” (Dyson and Genishi 115). This quote illustrates how every person generates their own realities based on social influences and experiences which shape how they perceive situations such as Madlenka creating an entire universe that was one block long.

               Generalizations are structured out of contexts such as culture, socioeconomic standards, linguistics, education, and the types of relationships that have been constructed. These different contexts blend together to create elastic ideologies, and more often than not, coalesce and form those gray areas in which researchers are troubled by. The authors then continue to discuss how generalizations can be incorporated into the researchers experiment by using Mrs. Kay’s and Ms. Yung’s classrooms. Each of those classrooms uses the environment to shape how the observations relate to the researcher’s findings in different ways.

Surviving Generalizations and Making Them

10/29 Response

Graham Oliver

Surviving Generalizations and Making Them.

I read the transcript instead of watching the video as I was in a place that listening to it wasn't feasible, so my first question is why they bothered inserting the pauses and such into the transcript?! Very annoying, and I can't imagine what purpose it served since it seems like the transcript is mainly there for accessibility purposes.

A lot of what this talk covered was stuff that we've seen in other classes, common topoi, but he really sums it up and ties it together in a very concise way while not losing too much. I liked how he flew through the damage done by both positive and negative stereotypes so easily with his own school experience, and how that negativity echoed against and impacted his parents despite them not being involved in the original situation. His explanation of why he talked to the boys that made fun of him while he was running (might not change them, but self-empowers and allows him to be more comfortable with his integrity) can carry over into a lot of other arenas in life. His advice to think about the implications of asking a Native American student (also carries over to any non Western-Europe student, in my opinion) if Columbus discovered America is important, although I had hoped this “fact” was already being reshaped in curriculum. I know that by high school I was being taught that Columbus didn't discover America, that instead either he or a group of vikings were the first Europeans to discover America. I am not sure what is being taught in elementary schools, but I had hoped it was being framed in a similar fashion. Finally, his call to minority parents to not overly shelter their children from racism was at first thought touching and practical, but really has deeper implications when you consider that the talk started off with Sue's very negative experiences with racism as a child.

Moving on to how to make a good generalization...

Most of the practices laid out in this chapter were also covered in the final words on qualitative research in the Creswell text. The biggest thing that came to my mind while reading this section were the parallels between case studies and more controlled quantitative experiments. In both cases you are using a limited set of actions/experiences/information to draw bigger conclusions. A hardcore quantitative researcher would argue that their experiments are repeated enough times or controlled well enough that they have a more valid claim to far-reaching implications, but I think you could make a very similar argument about case studies as well, as to why they can represent a bigger picture. I would have liked a little bit more about how it's not entirely necessary to draw generalizations. As a researcher, we can zoom in on a small bit of something and do qualitative analysis and present our findings and the research itself can push the reader to think about the broader implications, I don't think it's necessary to provide that leap within the research itself. At least, that's what I've taken from our narrative research class.

Data Collection and Analysis

It’s interesting that the reading for this week covered data collection--more specifically audiotape. I went home last week to check on my mom after she got out of the hospital, and she let me know about yet another book idea she had for me to write about. This time she wants me to write about my aunt going from rags to riches by becoming a madam. Mind you she gets a new book idea, or reworks an old one, every few weeks--and we haven't written anything yet. This is due to the fact that she still has ideas in her head, and has not put any notes down on paper for me. The problem is we haven't been able to find an easy way for her to get the words out of her head. She decided to get Dragon Dictate so she could just talk and have the words typed directly into the computer for her, but as my boyfriend was setting everything up I realized that this was getting way too complicated for her. Then he made the suggestion of her using a digital voice recorder to take notes, and found a wireless digital recorder with DNS (Dragon Naturally Speaking) that we can set up to download files directly into Dropbox. That way I can have the audio file be transcribed directly by Dragon without having to type anything. How freakin' awesome is that? I think at that moment the Heavens opened up, and angels started to sing. I think this might actually work (if she actually uses it), so be on the lookout for my first novel. 

As for data analysis, what caught my attention here is the coding. I don't think I've ever done it before, but when I think back I have seen and heard about it without knowing what it was. I remember one conversation with my dad about his study habits, and how he was working on his dissertation. He told me he had used tons of index cards, different colors, labels, etc. to organize his information. I never really thought about this again until I was helping a friend write her index cards. She had the responses from people, and had noticed patterns of certain words. She color coded each response, and used different color index cards/highlighters/pens for the different words. It was pretty interesting how she had this rainbow of data, and how easy it was to see patterns this way. I'm not all that excited about going through all of that work myself, but it seemed to pay off in the end.  

Chapters 2 and 3 of On the Case

Chapter 2 of On The Case introduced the first steps for a researcher seeking to “case the joint” or rather, “slowly but deliberately amass information about the configuration of time and space, of people, and of activity in their physical sites”(19).  In order to gain valuable information about a site, a researcher must situate themselves within the location.  The first visits to a site allow the researcher to amass a lot of information that will lead them to asking questions which may be worth designing a study around.  The design is not something that comes first but rather comes as a result of initial observations and data collecting.  Researchers configure space and time through maps, schedules (both official and unofficial), and participant actions.  This initial observation helps attune the researcher to the physical locations, to make it easier to pick out and analyze distinct going-ons happening on location that otherwise may be lost in the chaos.  A project notebook becomes the researcher’s best friend and textbook, as all the data becomes organized within it from important numbers, to dates, to specific information about the site.

Chapter 3 delves further into the Case Study design but reminding us that as researchers we seek to know something as well as we can, and that to do that, we should choose something small.  It is often difficult to narrow our interests and do that however. “Each case becomes an object of study—foreground—against a particular background or problem that animates the researcher to see the boundaries of the case” (43).  While it is important have research questions to design the study, researchers must be open to changes or information that changes the research questions—that they may have to adjust their study.  The researcher also needs to recognize their role within the research site as well as reflect on the lenses we use to view the site and our background that may lead us to use these lenses. 

I’ve really enjoyed this book so far.  I love the use of examples to illustrate the points the writers are making within the book.  I think it also illustrates the difficulty of placing myself as a researcher within a site and developing research questions.  It still leaves me wondering how exactly to put myself out there, where to look for these research sites, as well as the best way to hone in on particular areas that might be a good place to consider a case.  I think this is part of the process though.  It really is a process of discovery that is probably very different for every researcher because every place and the people within that place are so different and have many perspectives.  I am really interested in particular in “key events” that Dyson and Genishi mention on page 48.  They recognize that they cannot, feasibly, document and transcribe every single piece of video footage or audio tape that they have.  Instead they must narrow their look at “key events” that they pick out.  I start questioning how you pick out these “key events”.  I know they will be shaped by the research questions, but how do we distinguish which are key events that we should be looking at, whereas other events are able to be left to the side.  Are we privileging certain information?   How can we do this without silencing voices of those that are actually important to our study and the information we seek?  Since we are looking with a lens, I imagine this means recognizing our own limitations, but does this not also skew our information that we’re presenting to the audience?  Perhaps without them even knowing the extent of the skew?  

On the Case - Chapters 2 and 3

Chapters 2 and 3

First of all, I am really enjoying this book; I am discovering new ideas that relate to concepts of research and culture that I currently hold.  For instance, my cultural research with Veterans is complicating sometimes not only because I have a strong sense what being in the military means (for me), but also because I am dealing with other branches and different military occupational specialities (MOS) that all have a different cultural structure.

In the second chapter, Dyson and Genishi discuss the importance of observing an environment before you "discover" the meanings of the actions; Dyson and Genishi refer to this as "casing the joint".  While I certainly understand the importance of this process (casing the joint assists researchers with understanding their biases), I have a hard time casing or observing a culture that, even though I have been out of the Marine Corps for 6 years, my mind and cultural ideals are parallel with the Marine Corps Culture.  Although this type of understanding is an advantage in a research setting, my biases for "my" branch and "my" MOS will certainly create some obstacles for me to overcome. 

Dyson and Genishi provided me with assistance by providing an explanation of their challenges, "In order to learn about this site on its own terms, and to figure out what this place might teach me, I had to work to carefully attune myself to its rhythms.  In the beginning, this meant sketching maps, asking for official schedules (or copying those that were posted), jotting down organizational specifics of a breadth of language and literacy activities, and noting how children were arranged in the room..." (30).  In other words, the authors believe that facing your biases head on by remaining objective and understanding the value of learning something different from a particular setting. 

Ok, so I understand now that the rhythms of the environment I am researching are far more important than mine; my realization of this fact is what allows me to move on; however, I also need to know how I should approach my research in way that allows me to understand my subjective ideas before I observe my environment.In chapter 3, Dyson and Genishi discuss the design of "casing an environment".  They state the importance of understanding the context of the actions of a community: "Understanding that Madlenka's block is potentially a case of intergenerational learning or that Mrs. Kay's room is a case of children's 'having their say' depends on knowing both background and foreground" (43).  Here, the authors are explaining that the history and the implications of history are very important in each separate area that one is researching.

As a principle, because of this chapter, I will strive to set aside my understanding of a certain culture before I begin "casing the joint".  According to Dyson and Genishi, I must take on the role of the researcher, and I must continuously strive to understand why environment is important to me and why an environment is important to the culture I am researching: "We recognize that who we are outside our identities as university researchers influences the kinds of questions we ask and the kinds of collaborators and participants we select for our studies" (57-58).  

Blog #4 "Casing the Joint"

The different approaches used by Dyson and Genishi include maps, schedules, people, and the social dynamics of language use. This book is much easier to read and is quite informative of qualitative research design. This chapter focuses on “casing the joint” which offers researchers the ability to focus on elements pertaining to the situation at hand. I like how the environment is considered as a whole element from the buildings to the classroom setting inside. This provides a complete description of the situation, which offers researchers the most information and objectivity. This enabled me to think of a type of macro (large) to micro (small) environment that I studied in psychology. It also mimics the open-ended nature of data collection procedures which begins as a huge topic and eventually finds its subject in the details that researchers use.

        The social dynamics of language use are of particular interest to me. Dyson and Genishi state that “sociolinguistic tools can help researchers gain some sense of how social activity organizes time, space, and human action.” The interactions between the researcher and subjects are highly organized to the researcher and not overtly obvious to the subjects. For example, my research will involve asking adolescents about their identity development that appears open-ended but follows a specific format that is not readily apparent to my subjects.

The next aspect of social dynamics of language use involved immersion. I took several vacations to Mexico to visit my friends and had a desire to understand other cultures in my travels in the world. Mexico offered an interesting blend of culture and I was able to understand what the people were doing around me based on my situational observations. I like to watch people and see how they behave in certain circumstances. I was immersed in Mexico in the city of Fresnillo, close to Zacatecas. The people were very excited to meet an American, and it was a small town environment filled with good people. I was immersed in the culture before the violence escalated. I was able to understand some Spanish after a few months.

        Casing the joint enables researchers to learn and absorb the material around them using a qualitative based study. This situation is where true knowledge is and people can be categorized (based on the research conducted) into different groups. I almost always focus on the situation for the greatest amount of information.  Thanks for reading!

On the Case Chs 2 & 3

I have been going back and forth in my mind about how I am going to approach my research. I wanted to do surveys and then I didn't. The first chapter helped me to understand who I should be researching and why, and these two chapter defined the what and how.

In chapter two, I learned that observations are very important; they can tell a lot about a single person, a group of people, or an entire community. Observations can also tell what types of behaviors or actions one might make in a certain situation. I would have to watch and observe many people to understand why they make the choices the do and try to understand (maybe through surveys) why they make certain choices.

While reading the section on language use, I thought about what matters to the people involved and why do people use certain types of languages. For example, in the classroom setting many children seem to have their own language (this might be considered a classroom norm set by the student's themselves or the teacher at the beginning of the semester).

As I was reading through this, I wondered how I could use today's online language and incorporate it into my research. I know I have to sift through a lot of stuff and observe how people use this type of language and why, but I think it will be worth while to look into.

In chapter three, I learned about boundaries and setting them accordingly so I don't go off topic and I don't go outside of the topic I want to discuss/ research. This chapter suggested many good ideas on how to conduct research and to stay within one's boundaries.

In all, I have to ask myself "who am I and how do I impact this research?" Are my choices, questions, observations, and approaches going to add or take away from the research. I may need to think more about these things while I am observing and definitely take them into consideration while I put together my research.

On the Case Ch 2-3

In chapters two and three of On the Case, Dyson and Genishi detail two important aspects of their method for case study research.  Chapter two is about "Casing the Joint" or familiarizing yourself with the area where the case study will take place.  It is important for researchers to learn about the place where they will be doing research so that they can better understand the people they are observing.  Dyson and Genishi recommend creating a map of the area both to better understand the area and to decide where to position oneself while observing.  This observational period also gives researchers an opportunity to make preliminary observations and view their own ideas and biases on the group being observed.  The excerpted example from a "Project Notebook" on page 40 is especially helpful for showing how an experienced researcher documents their initial observations and contacts when beginning to study the case.

Chapter three is all about "Getting on the Case: Case Study Design" and Dyson and Genishi explain the steps for beginning a case study.  Researchers need to have a good understanding of the foreground and the background of the case since "each case becomes an object of study--the foreground--against a particular background or problem that animates the researcher to see the boundaries of the case." (p 43)  This is a crucial step to identifying the case and creating a method for research since it basically outlines the parameters of the study.  Once the foreground and background have been identified, the researcher should begin drafting the questions that will develop the study.  The information in the "Research Design" book was more thorough and less interesting.  This book is filled with examples so it is easier to understand the concepts, at least for me anyway. 

When the researcher understands the foreground and background and has developed questions for the case study, he or she can begin "Designing the Study", a process that seems to be vague compared to research designs for quantitative or mixed methods study.  Example 3.1 on page 47 contains a simple outline for a case study that seems both easier to understand and less thorough than any example from "Research Design" and perhaps that is why I like it better.  Qualitative research, case studies, and Dyson and Genishi's writing style, seem to be much better suited to my personality and study habits.

I really enjoy how they include so many examples throughout the book, it makes the material much more palatable, but I do wish they would have included examples of case study research on topics other than elementary school classrooms.  While I understand that education is their area of research and expertise and that is why the examples are on this topic, observing a classroom full of small children sounds like my own personal hell and I would have enjoyed some other examples.  Nit-picky, I know, but it would have been helpful.  

Week 7

The reading this week was about how a researchers situate themselves in the environment they plan to research. This involves a very complex awareness of surroundings before the research even begins. The researcher must situate the location, specifically the school as this is educational research, in terms of the state, district, neighborhood, and even the location of the one classroom in relation to the rest of the school. Even the location of the restrooms matter as the author pointed out, in terms of gendered and management language. That is something I probably would not have thought of on my own, even though that as I look back at my previous job at a childcare facility, it makes so much sense. Restrooms were a very big part of management, and child management was certainly a gendered issue. When the kids sat down to have a snack, I had to manage the seating to make sure the gender ratio was appropriate (one girl would cry if she had to only sit with boys). It was even a policy that as a punishment, a boy would only have to sit with girls if he couldn’t behave (keep his voice down) with his male friends. When I had the job, it was just policy, but now that I look back, I wonder if that management of gendered and language management could lead to a research question. It seems that as I think about it, this kind of observing and noticing issues is what the authors meant by seeing what kinds of questions a site can bring up and what types of situations might be available to observe.

The second chapter in the reading material focused on the researcher getting more specific about developing a research question and beginning to do more research. The authors brought up a point about the researchers knowing themselves as humans who come to the site with preconceived notions and biases. That balances a previous point about how the participants in the study are also individuals who have their own motivations and reactions to situations that cannot necessarily be compared to others’ reactions in future sites. This is the complicated part about qualitative research in the humanities. It was recognized in the book that a lot of education management at the state or district level wants more quantifiable data or “scientific” research. In some ways, this discounts the uniqueness and humanness of the researcher, participants, and even the readers of the research who will probably make their own judgments based on their own biases no matter whether the data is “scientific” or not. By wanting quantifiable data, are they not simply asserting their own biases on what qualifies good research? 

Dyson & Genishi, Chapters 2 & 3

For me, chapter 2 in On the Case was about immersing yourself in the environment in which your research will take place. It advocates a sort of "fly-on-the-wall" approach, such as the one taken by the researcher studying intergenerational learning. She spends an hour sitting in a shop and simply takes notes on the shop owner's interactions with the customers. While reading this part, I was thinking about how much you can learn about a location by performing such a seemingly simple observation. An hour of note-taking could potentially yield findings about the regional dialect, local economy, perhaps general attitudes held by residents. I'm reminded of a local barbeque joint in Ashland, Ohio, that I used to visit with my fiance (so very long ago when I was eating meat). It was a tiny venue run by a older couple that shared building space with a flower shop. Bible passages hung on wooden placards on the walls. Fox News played on a TV mounted in the corner of the room. The food was cheap; the bill for the two of us would always fall under $10. Most of the customers who stopped in were locals and regulars. All of this information already depicts a pretty accurate portrait not only of the restaurant, but the area in which it's located. In contrast, I worked a couple of jobs farther north in Westlake, Ohio, a fairly wealthy community with a gigantic new outdoor shopping mall. I'm sure the experience sitting in a Starbucks or at the Cheesecake Factory at this shopping mall would reveal as much about Westlake as the barbeque place did about Ashland, and the comparison of two observation sessions spent sitting in each location would reveal the major differences about each area. Back to Dyson & Genishi-- I'm reminded of the contrast between the researcher and the college student observers studying the inner city classroom, and how the college student observers' views were limited because they only visited once a week at the same time. The researcher was able to be much more immersed in the environment than they were and therefore had a much richer research experience.

Chapter 3, particularly the "Complicating Our Roles & Identities" section, reminded me of a conversation I just had about my thesis. Dyson & Genishi talk about how "particular aspects of ourselves . . . influence the lenses we look through" (57). As a vegetarian transitioning to vegan, I'm writing my thesis from an interesting perspective. My thesis deals with the anti-rhetoric surrounding veganism; one idea in particular that I'd like to explore deals with the term "cruelty-free," which is listed on the label of many vegan products. As I was explaining this idea to someone, I mentioned how it conveys a sense of moral superiority. This is an interesting argument to make because, as a budding vegan, I share in this belief that animal-free products are morally superior, or more morally sound to those that aren't--however, my thesis requires me to explore these things that "give veganism a bad name," and it is my responsibility to explore these topics from a netural, objective standpoint. So in a way, I'm sort of holding myself and my beliefs up to a level of scrutiny in a way that complicates my research-- but in a good way, I think.