syllabus
blackboard
student.email resources

last.updated 6.19.06

 

Triangulation Methods


Purpose

To introduce you to a research strategy that uses the communication triangle as its foundation.


Questions

  • Both Rouzie and McKee present data that is subject to their audience's interpretation. How does their methods for collecting data affect this intepretation? How does the way that they report their respective research process affect your interpretation?
  • Should scholars feel free to openly critique other scholars, or would it be more collegial--perhaps more ethical--to engage these scholars in a discussion before you publically criticize their work?


Rouzie

  • What causes people to engage in serio-ludic discourse? Is it truly
    the fact that the Internet allows for play, or is it an expression of how people communicate in real life?
  • Bahktin was mentioned in this artical and also in one of the readings for last week. Can we discuss his theory briefly in class to get a better understanding of how his work fits in with the conversations we have been having? (particularly the "carnival" part)
  • He uses the terms synchronic and diachronic frequently and it made me think that this is an element that we haven't talked about a lot in class and most of the readings address mostly synchronic issues but don't address the intersection of synchronic and diachronic methods and structures. Can we talk about this a little tonight?
  • This article provides an excellent example how electronic playful discourse can serve as the conduit for the exploration of more serious and substantive discourse and involvement with the internet. I believe to be a necessary and critical impetus for the narrowing of the Digital Divide because it allows children and other to be introduced to technology by the use of playful interface and this may serve to eliminate impasse to the use of technology.
  • At the risk of leaping into a spikey pit of anger and misunderstanding, I thought I'd raise a point that occured to me on page 265 of Rouzie's article, where he is discussing how "play" in online discourse can contribute to understanding the media and overturning preset notions. He says play may appear "trivial" or "horrific, revealing morally reprehensible dark sides of our students." Play in these discursive contexts is a license to depict and explore motives that we are not permitted to examine outside that specially distanced, stylized and intensified environment of the play stage." It is interesting to me to wonder what Rouzie would make of the case of Mr. Bungle, our virtual rapist from the Dibbell story. Was he playing? Was what he did ok because it was carnivalesque?
  • Were these online chats held with all participants in the same room? What was the (possible) pedagogical rationale for that decision?
  • The idea of incorporating linguistic "play," and therefore heightening communicative sophisication in the classroom, fascinates me. Surprisingly, the flaming issue in this article "burned out" through group mediation. What are the benefits of adding synchronous chat, versus the more "static" chat board, to classroom dialogue? How might each format affect utterances in interracial discussion, as in McKee's article?
  • In a composition class, where dialogue and conversation is key, wouldn't it be beneficial for there to be "play" if the class is delivered
    electronically, in order to avoid those participating from feeling isolated or disconnected?

McKee

  • Can "flaming for understanding" truly further an online discussion?
    Should this be accepted as netiquette? How can the average person tell "flaming for understanding" from just flaming?
  • I have issues with McKee's conclusions on this. To me,
    flaming is no different than shouting at someone in real life. I'm not sure how the other person is expected to listen when he/she is being shouted at. I think if you are going to communicate with someone, you have to understand how to communicate with that person first. Perhaps McKee means this just for the IEDP context, but it seems as if the members of IEDP need to examine how they communicate, especially express anger in real life, before attempting to communicate with others online.
  • it seems as if there is a shift in how research is being done to include the study participant's feedback more and more. In this article, McKee sent a draft to the students she interviewed and incorporated that into her final product. Is this a common technique?
  • Although the provocative and compelling issues of race, religion, class, and gender provide excellent discussion topics because of the emotion and passion in which people invest in such topics, its use as dialogue may also serve as an albatross to the resolutions of the aforementioned issues because of the embedded emotion and passion involved in such discussion.
  • Re-examining McKee in light of DePew's article, it seems to me that McKee may have committed an methodological transagression. Her study focused only on the flaming behavior she witnessed in IEDP, not on the ordinary discussion that occurred in the Diversity forum and other forums. As such, does it not risk mischaracterizing the IEDP as overly contentious? In fact, the rest of the discussions may have been boring and unproductive. Or they may have been riveting. Who can say?
  • I'm curious if others agree: I believe that McKee's research illustrates the importance of the instructor/ facilitator in on-line environments. I especially liked her suggestions at the end for improving on-line class discussions.
  • The "purple car" debacle problematizes the issue of flaming- something that appears to be as context driven as discussions of slavery among various racial groups. By engaging students in these dialogues "both online and face to face" (431) it might also be possible to gauge other online utterances. In Romano's study, may we also consider the last bilingual comments made during class discussion flaming?
  • If the Internet allows people to construct their identities, how can we really determine whether a online "interracial" conversation is really productive...or even really "interracial"?

DePew

  • Is De Pew advocating the use of triangulation methods in all
    studies of digital discourse to achieve the most data about users and
    producers if the situation allows for such use?
  • You argue that this (above) piece of triangulation can make an article more ethical. How is it more ethical? Does that mean that traditional textual analysis is unethical or marginally ethical?
  • I wonder will research triangulation be the most effective way to examine the issue of the Digital Divide. My problem with exercising this method of research is that there is a multitude of issues and I am not sure will this approach will provide the creditable that such research deserves. I am of the opinion that by trying to substantiate multiple issues in your search it dilutes the creditability because it seems discursive; however, by attempting to examine only a couple of issues you can make you research and your findings seem as linear as possible; thus I have some reservations about implementing this triangulation research method as I understand it. In addition, would the suggestions you provide work for the research of any question, or is it just for digital rhetorical research.
  • I'm afraid I may be getting stuck on a literalist, engineering-based definition of "triangulation." Do you not need exactly three things in order to triangulate? Can you "triangulate" four things, as DePew says Denzin is recomminging on page 5: "Denzin specifically recommends a triangulation of method, investigator, theory, and data?" Is triangulation the right word to use, or should be be saying something like "metalocation" or another word that does not come with a pre-existing meaning?
  • Despite having read Rouzie, I'm still unclear why, other than logistical, a rhetoric researcher would not want to attempt to triangulate their research? I'm having a hard time figuring out what the opposing argument would be.
  • This article clearly describes the benefits of multimodal research in rhetoric and composition- critical "triangulation" assures that our research branches out in productive directions which inform the discussion of the overall research topic (rather than limiting to a single text). What interests me as well is that this method clearly represents the researcher (and his/her resources, limitations as well). Could this method be ideal for research in areas outside of rhet. & comp. such as in the humanities, which prize the reading of "a text"?
  • If so much of cyberspace is constructs, how do we determine appropriate contexts? Are you saying that the writing shapes the context and/or discussion?

Research Activity

You will have an opportunity to use the Research Organizational Tool to start thinking about your Research Proposal. At the end of class submit your tool to the instructor for feedback.