Transcript all researchers must attend to:

class 4: 09/23/13
building research skills
(cont.)
research is
• We know that science evolves and knowledge
grows. The best attitude is a healthy skepticism,
along with a determination to stay abreast of
things. (John Swartzberg, 2009, p. 3)
• They don't know the simple rule
If it sounds too good to be true,
it probably is.
(Alecia Nugent, “Too Good to BeTrue,” 2007)
precision and accuracy cont.
• transcription format
–
–
–
–
–
–
(Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974)
regular type (upper & lower): speech
(( )): info on speaker’s tone, non-verbal speech
[ ]: other information
//: speaker interrupted or stops speaking
underscore: emphasis
colon within word: preceding syllable prolonged
1. Ken: You wanna hear muh-eh sister told me
2.
a story last night
3. Roger: I don’t wanna hear it. But if you must,
(1.0)
4. Al:
What’s purple an’ an island? Grape-Britain.
5.
That’s what his sis//ter –
6. Ken:
No. To stun me she says uh there was
these 3 girls an’ they just got married
7. Roger: Ehhh//hehh hhh hhh
9. Ken:
An’ uh//
10. Roger: Hey ((high pitch)) wa:it a se:cond
11: Roger: Heh!
Sacks, H. (1978). Some Technical Considerations of a Dirty Joke. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in
the Organization of Conversational Interaction (pp. 249-269). New York, NY: Academic Press.
_______________________________________
:00
:05
Claradine?
science
roooooo
I know what that
science
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
(D’Amato, 1986, p.23)
all researchers must attend to
type I and type II error
• type I: accepting as true what is really false
• type II: rejecting as false what is really true
(this is the straightforward plain English version—
courtesy of Lee Cronbach. see Vogt and Johnson
for the more complicated statistical version)
model: a graphic explanation of a small
part of the world
• evaluating models
– does this model adequately explain new
observations
– does this model explain observations
better than other models
constructing a model
1. hypothesize the factors involved
2. hypothesize how they might be related
3. draw the models
4. evaluate which one explains the facts best
5. guesstimate the strengths of paths
rules
•
model must be falsifiable
•
maximize concreteness
•
explain as much as possible
•
•
•
•
•
Krathwohl: ch 7
causal inference & internal integrity
associations and causation
cause:
– selecting the salient part of a causal chain for
one’s inquiry
– is always inferred
Popper’s escaping disconfirmation (falsification):
no proof in empirical research
Cronbach’s reducing uncertainty
clocklike vs cloudlike worlds
internal & external validity, & cause
• generalizability: based on this study what can we
say about other cases
– is the relationship established in this study
– does that relationship exist elsewhere
• internal validity (internal integrity)
– evidence for relationship between variables in a
study
• external validity (external generality)
– does relationship generalize beyond study
• operationalization: what we describe in search of
the unobservable
• to establish internal validity
– conceptual evidence
• explanation credibility
• translation credibility
– empirical evidence
• findings, results
• rival explanations eliminated
– credible, logically inferred claims
validity: capable of being justified
• internal: does study do what it says it does
• model theoretically sound
• well thought out operationalizations
• accurate descriptions (measurement or
narrative)
• well thought out design
• robust findings
• justifiable claims
• defensible conclusion
• external: do the claims generalize
– looking only at study, a judgment call
– external validity can really only be established
empirically—in fact, do the claims generalize
• can study be replicated
• if we do what study claims we should, do we get the
expected result
• real question not, do claims generalize, but to
what
inferring causation
• agreement
– what is common
• difference
– what is different
• concomitant variation
– do variables vary together
• residuals
– after eliminating explanations, what is left
ch 8: sampling, representation, & external generality
• sample and population
• larger sample needed
– the greater the certainty required to infer
from sample to population
– the more accurate we want to be about target
population
– the more the units in the sample vary
– the smaller the effect relative to normal
variation
• sampling frame—the list
• sampling unit—what is selected (unit of analysis)
probability sampling—random
• stratified
• systematic
• cluster
– Table 8.2 useful
nonprobability sampling
• judgmental
• purposive
• quota
• snowball (chain-referral)
• sequential
• the danger of convenience sampling
external validity (external generality)
• (if study has no internal validity, little point in
worrying about generalizability)
• conceptual evidence
– explanation generality
– translation generality
• empirical evidence
– “demonstrated generality”
– restrictive explanations eliminated
• replicable results
Vogt & Johnson
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
aggregate data
applied research
case study
control for
dummy variable (first paragraph)
ecological fallacy
emic, etic
endogenous, exogenous
experiment (first & third paragraph)
gambler’s fallacy
Sieber & Tolich: 6: Community-engaged research
and ethnography
• limitations of the medical model
• CBPR (community-based participatory research)
– 9 key principles (p. 98)
• Box 6.2: underserved becomes undeserved
• “the field of public health yields ample evidence
that disseminating the results of studies and
telling people how they should incorporate this
information into their lives produces minimal
behavior change. In contrast, participatory
research—research that is generated
collaboratively in a partnership between scientists
and others—has re-emerged in recent decades as
an alternative to top-down technical assistance
from experts to practitioners or community
residents that may help to ensure that research
results address real needs and may actually be
used” (pp. 101-102)
ethnography
• challenges field-based research faces with IRBs
• Sieber & Tolich’s suggestions for IRB questions:
1. what is the research project about?
2. what ethical issues does the researcher believe are
raised by this project?
3. How does the researcher plan to address these ethical
problems?
4. What contingencies are in place if the research
project changes its focus after the research has been
approved and has begun.
myths about field-based research
• “Avoids as much as possible advance knowledge of the
literature” (Sieber & Tolich, p. 109)
• Many researchers, especially those who use qualitative or
inductive methods, expect their problem focus to emerge
as they do their study. Therefore, to consult the
literature too early will burden them with other people’s
perceptions rather than allowing them to form their own.
(Krathwohl, p. 109)
– inductive: proceeding from particular facts to a general conclusion
rules for test groups
• 38 people in the class, so 8 groups of 4 and 2 of 3. groups of 3 can
have only person whose first language is not english
• no more than 2 members per group whose first language is not english
• every group must have at least one person whose first language is not
english
• no more than 2 males in each group
• groups balanced by ethnicity, gender etc. no all-white, all-black, allasian groups, no all-one-gender etc. groups—13 guys, so enough for
every group to have at least one.
• the groups for discussion leading work
test 10/07/13
covers
• all material in segment I
hints
• print lectures, take notes in class, read carefully taking notes—test will be a learning
experience.
• reviewing with peers, going over notes etc, will be big help
format
• available thursday, 10/03 after 9am (no class Monday, 10/07)
• groups 3-4. turn in 3x5 index card listing group 09/30.
• allot 4 hours. may take more, but . . . do in one sitting. do not open until group together.
• no discussion with anyone in 550 once you begin the test until Monday at 10 pm.
• do on a computer. when finished, delete questions you chose not to answer, and print out.
• put all names on test, and sign statement at the end. one test per group.
• hard copy in sealed 9x12 envelope (do not fold) 260 Armory by 10pm Monday
permitted: hand produced (by you) notes, website, xeroxed copies of 2 lists from K. ch 6
not permitted: texts, supplemental readings (unless noted in question)
Becker: preface, ch 1
• writing in grad school, and for the rest of your
academic life, a very different process from
writing up to this point
– days of the one-draft paper are over
– writing becomes a public process
– writing part of the research process, not simply
what one does at the end
(Becker cont.)
• scholars know that their professional futures
rests on how peers and superiors judge what they
write. They can’t distance themselves from their
writing.
• viewed sociologically, these writing symptoms were
magical rituals—rituals to influence the result of a
process over which we have no control.
• a mixed up draft is no cause for shame.
• if you begin writing early in your research, you
begin to clean up your thinking earlier.
• only version that counts is the last one.
APA
citations in text
• “. . . quoted text” (Chung, 2001, p. 20).
• Chung (2001) noted, “Quoted text . . .” (p. 20).
Latin abbreviations
• cf. (compare), i.e. (that is), e.g. (for example),
viz. (namely), etc. (and so forth), vs. (versus)
used only within parentheses. Otherwise spell
out (APA, p. 108). exceptions: et al. and v. (for
court cases)
citing quotation in secondary source
•
•
•
“Much of psychology . . . has envisioned the
child as embedded in the atemporal and
acontextual realm of abstract developmental
theory” (Lerner, 1998, p. 13, as cited in Lee &
Walsh, 2001, p. 71).
Lerner (1998) wrote, “Much of psychology . . .
has envisioned the child as embedded in the
atemporal and acontextual realm of abstract
developmental theory” (p. 13, as cited in Lee &
Walsh, 2001, p. 71).
References to both Lerner (1998) and Lee & Walsh (2001) needed in
References.
in American English
• periods and commas always go inside quotation marks
– He said, “Please go down the hall.”
• colons and semicolons always go outside quotation marks
– He wrote, “Be back soon”; then he left.
• question marks and explanation points—place depending on
the meaning
– She asked, “Where are you going?”
– What did she mean by “antiquated”?
use active voice
• I interviewed the kids. (yes)
• The kids were interviewed. (no)
use first person to talk about yourself
• I interviewed the kids. (yes)
• The researcher interviewed the kids. (no)
avoid beginning sentences with “there is” or “it
is” etc.
• There were three kids who answered… (no)
• Three kids answered the questions. (yes)
use who for people, that for things
• I interviewed the kids, who all agreed . . . (yes)
• I interviewed the teacher that was in . . . (no)
pronouns must refer to nouns
• I entered the room and found the kids running
across the table tops and throwing erasers at
each other. That made me nervous. (no—not clear
what made you nervous)
grad life: goods
good cheap places to eat
• Thai Eatery at the Y, Wright street (lunch only)
• Courier Café, Race St, downtown U
• L’il Porgy’s Barbecue, Broadway & University, U
• Noodles, Green St., Campus Town
good video sources
• That’s Rentertainment (6th & John, C) (buy a
“block”)
• Urbana Free Library (downtown U), free
good coffee houses
• Caffe Paradiso, Lincoln & Nevada, U (stays open
24 hours a day during exam week)
• Café Kopi, Walnut St, downtown C
good quiet place on campus to study
• Granger Engineering library
good place for tools, kids’ clothes, and stuff in
general
• Farm & Fleet, North Cunningham, U
this week: free and cheap
• thru thurs: Latin American Film Festival, Art
Theatre, C
• under construction