class 4: 09/23/13 building research skills (cont.)

class 4: 09/23/13building 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 me2. a story last night3. 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 married7. Roger: Ehhh//hehh hhh hhh9. Ken: An’ uh//10. Roger: Hey ((high pitch)) wa:it a se:cond11: 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

science roooooo I know what that 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 model1. hypothesize the factors involved2. hypothesize how they might be related3. draw the models4. evaluate which one explains the facts best5. guesstimate the strengths of paths

rules• model must be falsifiable• maximize concreteness• explain as much as possible

Krathwohl: ch 7causal 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,

all-asian 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 10/07/13covers• all material in segment Ihints • 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 helpformat• 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 6not 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.

APAcitations 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: goodsgood 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 Towngood 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 Cgood quiet place on campus to study• Granger Engineering librarygood 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