Doing Conversation...

Luff, P. & Heath, C. (2012). Some ‘technical challenges’ of video analysis: social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective. Qualitative Research 12, 255-279.

This article discussed the challenges in working with video recordings, esp. in terms of doing analysis of the data.  The article was accessible and great illustrations of the issues that can show up in this type of work and for me, there were two key paragraphs that kind of summed up the main points:

1. 'If the concern of the analysis involves assessing and accounting for the participants' own perspective on the ongoing activities, it can be problematic to determine how the conduct recorded by each camera is seen and understood by the different participants' (267).
2. The use of video recordings to analyze the use of technologies and objects in workplace settings cannot be accomplished by only scrutinizing the recordings.  Indeed, the analysis of the video materials that have been collected typically requires considerable knowledge about the activities of the participants...It is therefore necessary to undertake fieldwork before and often alongside the collection of recordings (271).  

Throughout the summer session and the opening of this semester, I have repeatedly focused on context and in our discussions, I kept thinking about how video recordings could be an answer to some of my worries.  I think that body language is so important and that producing a transcript isn't enough to produce a text for analysis. I buy that words/discourse are actions and that so much can be learned by looking at the discourse produced by participants, but if you don't have other pieces to fit with those words, how do you determine what is being accomplished by those words?  If you lack the setting, if you lack the body language, if you lack the facial expressions, etc., how do you make meaning out of what is being said? Then, as I type this, I am going back to telephone conversations.  How does anyone make meaning out of those?  Other than that take-for-granted, joint history that people in a conversation share, they lack those elements that I just shared as my concern if you don't have video.  Which came first...chicken or egg, right?

This article made me think a little deeper about my thought processes regarding the use of video recordings and honestly, I think that it made me question, a little bit, the faith that I had in the use of video recording.  Here is part of where I am coming from.  In Intro to Qual, my project was a mini-photoethnography of sorts that sought to look at the literacy practices of veteran classroom teachers through photographs and interviews conducted in the teachers classrooms.  I gave teachers a disposable camera and had them photograph the elements in their classroom that they felt comprised the literacy elements of their classrooms.  I did an initial coding of the photographs and an initial mapping of the classrooms, before sitting down with the teachers to discuss the pictures.  I have since been thinking that as a novice researcher that it would have been helpful for me to have had a video recording of the interviews in order to capture the elements of the interviews and the setting that I missed by just using mapping and audio recording.  After reading the article, I see challenges that this could have added to my study and how would I have ever been able to decide where to stop the analysis of the setting.  I think that I have also been tying video recording to greater transparency (or validity?) for the study than can be achieved using audio recording alone.  This article made me think about how easily it would have been to mis-out on a lot of things, because people are unpredictable.  They are constantly moving and shifting.  It would be really easy to miss out on the same elements (facial expressions, body language, setting, etc.) that wouldn't have been present in audio recordings, because the scope of the lens and the location of the participants.  

I think what I ultimately took from the article was something that Allison tried to instill in me way back in Intro to Qual, but that I have to keep be reminded of and learn.  There is no real safeguard or easy way out in qualitative research.  There is no fail safe.  Qualitative researchers have to work hard to make sure that they know themselves and their positionality.  They have to know their setting and they need to know their participants.  They need to know that, especially as they are developing research skills, that they need to use a variety of measures to ensure that they get the data needed to answer their research questions.  Video can be one way to do that, but it isn't foolproof.  Audio is another way to collect data, but skills have to be developed to make sure that you are using it accurately. Is this what you were hoping that we took away from this article?  The use of video is growing, but it isn't the safety net for our research that a lot of us have been thinking that it is?

Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. London: Sage. 

I think that you alluded to this as we were ending class last week as something that you expected to happen, but this session's readings were much appreciated.  The text wasn't necessarily a 'how-to' text on doing conversation, discourse, or document analysis, but it was one of those texts that was written in an accessible format for people new to this work to be able to gain a rudimentary understanding of these types of analysis.  Something that I especially appreciated or actually was excited about was the 'Key Points' section at the end of each chapter.  As I came to the end of each chapter, it excited me that I had picked out the key points as I was reading.  I promise that this wasn't the case as I am reading Kuhn for 640.  This reading was very appreciated.  In fact, any other non-course reading recommendations such as this would be greatly appreciated, especially if you have one like this for discursive psychology.  I am still positive that I am missing the piece of the puzzle that makes it all fit together for me.

One of the early things that I connected to in the readings was the contextual categorizations that can be attributed to participant's use of discourse.  'The focus is on what specific version of the world, or identity, or meaning is produced by describing something in just that way over another way; what is made available and what is excluded by describing something this way over an alternative way (2).'  The author gave a list of his attributes and how they are dependent on context.  A similar list could have been compiled by me.  My list in comparison to author’s list… I work with young children.  I am old if you ask my students.  My mother-in-law is 83 years old.  In her eyes, I am young at 35 and still in the learning stage of my life. Although I am working on a doctorate program and I will be a Ph.D. I won’t be a doctor. On a more personal level there is the issue of my parents.  I was raised by my grandparents and for financial reasons, I was adopted by them at 19 years of age.  On paper, on legal documents, they are my parents. My biological mother is my sister.  (Only in TN, right?) However, I am strongly tied to my father even though he died when I was young.  He will always be my father.  If you ask me about my parents, he is my dad and my mom is the person who gave birth to me.  A similar story could be discussed concerning my name.  All of our attributes can be tied to the context that we are in.  Does it make any of them less true or make me dishonest when I share things differently in different settings? That list helped me see or be more readily understanding of what you have been saying when you talk about that participants discourse can be seen as 'true' and not necessarily manipulative, because often the discourse is context based and used for the context. I think...

Rapley shared that 'an interview or focus group study that only uses participants’ accounts to understand people’s day-to-day practices seems problematic' (20). I think that this is true, but it is an area that I am now trying to gain an understanding of how best to accomplish this. In the reading, I tied it back to my interest in context.  One account, one snapshot, etc. doesn't provide insight for me in what the participant is trying to accomplish with their language.  If you are trying to gain insight into how literacy-based a teacher is or what practices that they use in their classroom, then you need more than one account to determine how this actually looks.  But, as I am typing this, I keep going back to the expression, 'There is no truth...'  Does multiple interviews, multiple observations, really provide more 'truth' than the one interview, the one observation? Am I throwing into the outfield again?  Still, I think that is what makes ethnography work so appealing.  By studying something in depth like ethnographers do, a greater understanding of the phenomenon or situation can be obtained, because you are really engrossed in all elements of the project.  Multiple facets can be examined and analyzed leading hopefully to a greater 'truth'.

Book Notes...

Chapter 1: Studying Discourse

This book aims to explore how you can research language in use (1).

For those analyzing discourse the primary interest is in how language is used in certain contexts.  And the context can range from a specific amount in a conversation to a specific historical period (2).

On a gross level, people studying discourse see language as performative and functional: language is never treated as a neutral, transparent, means of communication (2).

--example of two different news headlines and discussion of whether one is less true than the other

Such categorizations can be dependent on such contextual factors as the age of the other people, the specific context of social norms (3).

How I choose to describe myself and how others describe me, can, and does, have effects (3).

Documents produce specific realities and the realities they produce have effects (3).

Our understanding of things, concepts or ideas that we might take for granted like ‘sexuality’, ‘madness’ or ‘instincts’ is not somehow natural or pre-given but rather is the product of human actions and interactions, human history, society and culture (4).

It is essential that anyone who wants to conduct research has respect for those people they are researching and demonstrates this with their action throughout the life of the project (5-6).

Chapter 2: Generating an archive

Possible Data Sources:

1) data you have to generate, aka researcher-generated

2) data that already exists, aka already existing data (8-9)

Data Sources Could Include: videotapes; audiotapes; transcripts of interactions and/or interviews; handwritten and typed field notes (before, during, after); field notes, audiotapes, and minutes of research team meetings; official site documents (forms, reports, etc.); academic research papers; leaflets, handouts, newspaper cuttings; website; and, notes to self, memos, and quotes (9).

Rather than just think about ‘generating data’, in any narrow sense, you need to think about generating or producing an archive—a diverse collection of materials that enable you to engage with and think about the specific research problem or question.  On a practical level, this means collecting and managing an array of different materials…tied to ‘both your specific research question and your theoretical trajectory (10).

Document-Based Sources: newspaper and magazine articles, advertisements, magazine front covers, dating adverts, academic publications, government publications, parliamentary debates, diaries, biographies, literature, poetry, blogs, web-based diaries, internet sources (email, news groups, bulletin boards, etc.)

Primary Sources: historically contemporary and/or first-hand accounts

Secondary Sources: historically or spatially distant and/or second-hand sources

Tip:  Often the best starting point is to read other academic work on the specific topic and to find out what documents they used and where they found them (17).

Audio- and Visual-Based Sources: radio and television programmes; televised debates; documentaries; radio talk-shows; soap operas, drama serials, plays or films; interviews and focus groups

By using audio and video recordings and observations of ‘naturally occurring’ interactions over interviews, or experiences or imagining you already know, you can gain a different perspective on people’s actions and interactions (20).

For me, an interview or focus group study that only uses participants’ accounts to understand people’s day-to-day practices seems problematic (20). 

Whether it is an interview, a focus group, or an observation of an office or supermarket, you should be sensitive that people’s actions and interactions are contextually situated. We massively shape our actions and interactions to ‘fit with’ (and so reproduce) the, often, unspoken, norms, rules and expectations of the specific context we find ourselves in (20).

Chapter 3: Ethics and Recording ‘Data’

Your research should not cause any harm or distress, either psychological or physical, to anyone taking part in it.  Anyone taking part in the research should be aware what the research is about and consent to take part in it (24).

Ethical Guidelines:

1.     Seek permission to make the recording and get consent for any use or disclosure…informed consent written in ready accessible format without academic jargon or shorthand.

2.     Give participants adequate information about the purpose of the recording when seeking their participation.

3.     Ensure that participants are under no pressure to give permission for the recording to be made.

4.     Do not participate in any recording made against a participant’s wishes.

5.     Stop the recording if the participant asks you to, or if it is having an adverse effect on the participant or research setting.

6.     Do not use the recording for purposes outside of the scope of the original consent for use, without obtaining further consent.

7.     Ensure that the recording does not compromise the participant’s privacy and dignity.

8.     Make appropriate secure arrangements for storage of recordings.

Chapter 4: Practices of Recording

Rubin and Rubin (1995) note four key areas around recruitment:

1.     finding knowledgeable participants;

2.     getting a range of views;

3.     testing emerging themes with new participants; and

4.     choosing participants to extend results (38).

Potential Costs of Video Recording:

ð     participants may be less likely to agree to take part

ð     participants may take a long time to get accustomed to the equipment

ð     an additional researcher may have to operate the video camera (40)

Through prior fieldwork you should already be aware of what sort of actions you want to be able to record; they often include:

ð     the faces, gestures and (parts of) the bodies of participants;

ð     any tools or equipment or other objects they use; and

ð     any documents they use.

Chapter 5: Transcribing Audio and Video Materials

-Audio, increasingly video, recordings of talk and interactions, although never a comprehensive record of what is going on, allow us access to many of the practices of social life (50).

-transcripts are by their very nature translations (50).

-base your analysis on the recording and your field note (50).

-seek permission before recording and you must seek permission before using recording that was a part of a television recording (50)

-recordings and transcripts themselves are always selective and always partial (51)

-At the simplest level, a transcript can merely be a description of the recorded event (51).

-verbatim transcript: where you try to document the words that were spoken alongside who spoke them (52)

-elements of transcripts: title of transcript (technical and descriptive); identified speaker on left, line number of each line in transcript, and rendered participants' talk (54-56)

-titles for transcript: technical title (identifies just where the extract comes from) and descriptive title (stretch of talk this is allowing you to work from more than just memory) (54)

-author personally doesn't like doing any analysis from just transcripts alone (59)

-Jeffersonian Transcript: 1960's, Gale Jefferson, industry standard for conversation analysis (59)

-approximately 8 hours to transcribe 15 minutes of talk at Jeffersonian level of transcription (63)

-For the author, 'the utterly precise timing of a pause is less important than the presence of a pause, and how, if at all, people respond to that pause' (63).

-2 stages of transcription: 1) working transcript; 2) reporting transcript (63-64)

-Working with Video-Based Data: gaze; touch; gestures; posture; spatial positioning; other actions (64-65)

Chapter 1 Key Points:

ð     Language, written or spoken, is never treated as a neutral, transparent, means of communication. Instead, language is understood as performative and functional.

ð     People studying discourse are interested in how language is used in certain contexts.  The focus is on how specific identities, practices, knowledges or meanings are produced by describing something in just that way over another way.

ð     Our understanding of things, concepts or ideas that we might take for granted are not somehow natural or pre-given but rather the product of human actions and interactions, human history, society and culture (7).

Chapter 2 Key Points:

ð     You should generate an archive—a diverse collection of materials that enable you to engage with and think about the specific research problem or questions.  Your archive could contain document-based sources as well as audio- and visual-based sources.

ð     Read other academic work on your specific topic and find out what research materials they used and how they collected them.

ð     Rather than solely relying on researcher-initiated audio- and visual-based materials, for example, interviews or focus groups, some academics argue that you should focus on ‘naturally occurring data’ (22).

Chapter 3 Key Points:

ð     It is your duty to be aware of the relevant guidelines, recommendations, or codes of ethical conduct that could apply to the research you undertake.

ð     Your research should not cause any harm or distress, either psychological or physical, to anyone taking part in it. 

ð     You should never place yourself in any potentially dangerous situation (32).

Chapter 4 Key Points:

ð     Learn about your recording equipment prior to entering the field.  Just keep playing with it as often as you can.

ð     Realize that gaining access to the field (and working in the field) will often take up much more of your time than you initially imagined.

ð     Stay flexible.  Be prepared to modify your ideas about what constitutes the best sources and opportunities to record ‘data’ (47).

Chapter 5 Key Points:

ð     Your recordings and transcripts are always selective and always partial.

ð     Try not to undertake all of your analysis from just the transcript of a recording.  Transcripts are living, evolving, documents—they are always susceptible to change and alterations.

ð     When you start to make detailed transcriptions it can be really helpful to work with someone else, to work jointly on the same recording and help each other out both with what you heard and how to reproduce it on the page (70).