Week 4

Sperling and Calfee's book /Mixed Methods/ will be a useful tool as we bridge the gap between quantitative and qualitative practices. I think the breaking-down of the specific classroom studies, particularly how the examples are used in chapter four, can help us understand ways to make pointed research questions that can be answered using mixed methods; from there, there are strategies for “constructing a research design, a plan for collecting and organizing evidence relevant to a problem” while also maintaining balance between quantitative and qualitative (pp 49). Therefore, referring to what's addressed earlier in the book, starting with a good research question, in their view, can shift us from the general to the particular, from the broad to the specific, very easily, so long as we intend to use a balanced approach (pp 19). And that's interesting, because so often in writing studies, we read about the need for the scales to be tipped in favor of quantitative research (see: Haswell), because it can potentially add more legitimacy to our claims. So, in other words, according to Sperling and Calfee, we not only have to start with a question or set of questions that /invites/ mixed methods, the deliberate use of mixed methods will be what determines the legitimacy of our research, because there will always be a variety of different types of evidence to support a claim (pp 50-51).

When we decide to make use of narratives, for instance, we can strengthen that qualitative data by complementing it with statistics that illustrate the points that are being made. I think this is a really good point and one that I've been trying to internalize as a new researcher. For the past few months, I've been working on a research project about the use of business and marketing discourse in educational settings, specifically the in writing center, and how the conflation of these two domains -- marketing and education -- is potentially problematic and may harm the relationships between tutors and students. I would like to use the approaches Sperling and Calfee outline in this book to give my claims more weight and legitimacy: I have interviewed several writing center directors with whom I've worked in the past, and I've also performed some discourse analysis of writing center promotional materials and presentations, compared to various mission statements and pedagogical aims mentioned by administrative bodies. So, I've done a lot of leg work when it comes to gathering qualitative evidence, and I'm in the process of fine-tuning my analyst abilities by attaining skills in Prof. Dunmire's Discourse Analysis class this semester. However, I think I need to recursively go back and readjust my research questions so that I can use a more mixed methods approach, because I have yet to gather quantitative data, and as it stands, my project sounds one-sided and ideologically-motivated (in ways that are distracting -- I want the ideology/epistemology to be plain, but I don't want them to dominate/distract).

Another problem: I think it would be valuable for me to assess the "context in relation to research" (pp 59). I have not placed myself in the participants' shoes, so I do not know what it's like to answer my questions from their perspective. As "the researcher," I only understand the process of recording and interpreting their answers. I don't know what it's like to choose my answers carefully; if I were participating, I would be mindful of my word choices and how I represent myself and my institution (since a lot of my interviews have been with administrators). These are all factors I'm thinking about while reading. As I mentioned, I will have to go back and re-evaluate some of my choices as researcher, think about what exactly I want to say and why I want to say it, before going through the interviewing process again (this project is on-going).

In any case, I'm hopeful that the examples this book offers will help guide me through this process and other processes along the way. I agree that employing a solidly mixed methods approach can ultimately "provide protection against threats to validity," and as as a newbie researcher (pp 80), that is one of my primary concerns: While all research is going to be at least slightly flawed, I want to limit the amount of seriously flawed research I produce. Typically, I would type "haha," or "lol" after such a statement, to indicate nervous laughter. There has been research I've read that is incredibly dated and super racist, misogynist, and/or classist, etc, for example. Not everyone's research is going to stand the test of time, but I would like my research to be competently compiled and reasoned. I guess we'll see...