Qualitative Research or Number Crunching...in My English Class??
This
chapter covered a lot of ground and paid attention to the numerous essays and
lengthy research papers that we have all read and often disliked intensely,
because of their endless mention of statistics or inclusion of confusing
graphs. I am actually a fan of math, and like to be offered proof in simple
terms which often means a numeric count to back up the pros and /or cons of any
topic in question.
As
I used the annotation tool I noticed Martha’s comments often reflected my own
feelings; she also felt the use of numbers to prove results on a survey is the
norm. It did occur to me, as the bowling scores were being manipulated, that
numbers can also be skewed in a variety of ways and that could affect the
argument. The author’s personal distaste for statistical proof or avoidance of math
in general might be the root of this discussion. My personal reaction still accepts
the use of statistics—in English and anywhere that numbers both clarify and prove
the validity of any research in question. While numbers can be manipulated, words are far easier to use in deceptions. And
writers are quite adept at both using
and misusing words to their benefit.
Thinking
along these lines, I was taken aback when Colin made a very insightful comment
that I had not considered. He asked: ”…what if the students interviewed as part
of the gathered “data” are not invested in the study and give the easiest or
more popular answer simply to fulfill a requirement?” That was something I had
not even considered! Perhaps a criteria for being involved in such a survey
would need to be a genuine interest or personal investment. His point is valid
and would definitely lead to an invalid numeric outcome BUT would also lead to
the same falsity if using qualitative answers. In truth, that question would
need to be considered by the researchers before they started any study.
One
thing that was unsettling as I read this chapter was the tone of Johanek, often
in accordance with her cited sources. It seemed they were treating female English
research-writers, in a different fashion than men. And that makes absolutely no
sense as each writer, male or female, has their own style, and preferred manner
of research methods. Ultimately, they should choose their most powerful tool to
prove the importance of any outcomes their research has unearthed. Enos’
decision to omit her supporting data, thus omitting the full scope of the
outcomes, highlights the ridiculous concept of only providing a narrative. I
don’t want to be “told a story.” I want the facts when research is involved! If
women repeatedly adapt their writing style to gain approval from an “other” in
an allegedly male-dominated field, they can never reach their personal degree
of expertise, and contribute freely as research-writers.
How
can masculine writing be more scientific? That is a bold generalization,
especially for someone (like me) who has embraced Shakespeare, and spent time,
tears, and hours of research on his works. Yet, I never noticed that detail…
Albeit, they are discussing male research-writers vs. female, and suggesting
that women should tell the story and create the research as a narrative. BUT
WHY? Many men (Peter Elbow anyone?) also
present their findings in this manner, and many women include statistical data
to empower theirs. Writing, any writing, should always be the writer’s decision
and interpretation of their story.
I
imagine that some of the statements about women needing to write in a different
style can be attributed to the original publication date of this text. My
reaction is that women have proven repeatedly over the centuries their power of
the pen, and their mastery of capturing the story. Emotional writing should not only be associated with women any more
than rational writing assigned only
to men. That is a sexist idea and one I have never associated with one
particular sex; a healthy balance of both is an integral part of any writer’s personal
style.
No comments:
Post a Comment