Difference between revisions of "Roulston2001a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Kathryn Roulston; |Title=Data analysis and “theorizing as ideology” |Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; data analysis; interview da...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=1 | |Volume=1 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=279–302 |
| − | |Abstract=In this article the author reviews a segment from a report of a research project that she undertook in 1991. In this initial entry into the research world, the research process used aimed to make audible one part of the ‘personal practical knowledge’ of a group of music teachers. By critiquing one segment of the report and contrasting this with a re-analysis of the original data upon which this segment relies, an alternative view of the research process and the research findings may be gained. The research process used in the first report aimed to allow teachers’ voices and knowledge to become explicit. In fact, it may be seen to gloss over underlying discourses and in doing so, romanticize those voices. Concomitantly, a re- | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/146879410100100302 |
| − | analysis of the original data using methods drawn from conversation analysis reveals the ways in which the researcher’s voice is indelibly inscribed in the research process. The critique presented here elucidates the ways in which ‘theorizing as ideology’ may be accomplished by a novice researcher in the writing of a research report. Further, the utilization of | + | |DOI=10.1177/146879410100100302 |
| + | |Abstract=In this article the author reviews a segment from a report of a research project that she undertook in 1991. In this initial entry into the research world, the research process used aimed to make audible one part of the ‘personal practical knowledge’ of a group of music teachers. By critiquing one segment of the report and contrasting this with a re-analysis of the original data upon which this segment relies, an alternative view of the research process and the research findings may be gained. The research process used in the first report aimed to allow teachers’ voices and knowledge to become explicit. In fact, it may be seen to gloss over underlying discourses and in doing so, romanticize those voices. Concomitantly, a re-analysis of the original data using methods drawn from conversation analysis reveals the ways in which the researcher’s voice is indelibly inscribed in the research process. The critique presented here elucidates the ways in which ‘theorizing as ideology’ may be accomplished by a novice researcher in the writing of a research report. Further, the utilization of conversation analysis to investigate interview transcripts of teacher talk demonstrates an approach to data analysis which might be further explored by researchers employing interviews as a method of data generation. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 05:29, 18 October 2019
| Roulston2001a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Roulston2001a |
| Author(s) | Kathryn Roulston |
| Title | Data analysis and “theorizing as ideology” |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, conversation analysis, data analysis, interview data, qualitative research, re-analysing data |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2001 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Research |
| Volume | 1 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 279–302 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/146879410100100302 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this article the author reviews a segment from a report of a research project that she undertook in 1991. In this initial entry into the research world, the research process used aimed to make audible one part of the ‘personal practical knowledge’ of a group of music teachers. By critiquing one segment of the report and contrasting this with a re-analysis of the original data upon which this segment relies, an alternative view of the research process and the research findings may be gained. The research process used in the first report aimed to allow teachers’ voices and knowledge to become explicit. In fact, it may be seen to gloss over underlying discourses and in doing so, romanticize those voices. Concomitantly, a re-analysis of the original data using methods drawn from conversation analysis reveals the ways in which the researcher’s voice is indelibly inscribed in the research process. The critique presented here elucidates the ways in which ‘theorizing as ideology’ may be accomplished by a novice researcher in the writing of a research report. Further, the utilization of conversation analysis to investigate interview transcripts of teacher talk demonstrates an approach to data analysis which might be further explored by researchers employing interviews as a method of data generation.
Notes
