Comments on your blogs. I started class with a quick overview of some of what I am seeing on your blog. You are doing a good job of naming the different parts of the analytic process. What is missing are the lists of the particular codes and categories - along with examples from the data of actions, interactions, actors and settings that you used those codes/categories to name. Writing up your analysis by identifying your codes and categories, and then explaining the relationships between the different elements within those codes and categories allows us to talk about HOW you came to your conclusions about your data. It provides evidence of your logic and your assumptions.
For example, we noted in Brigit's data analysis that she looked at correlations between the age and the emotions of participants in the class interviews on 911. AWESOME. And there are great observations & hypotheses here. What needs to be developed is the identification/classification of the different age groups + the emotions subjects of that age showed in different conversations (with respect to different subject material, etc). The kind of analysis we are working on should function as EVIDENCE for your conclusions. It should show what you named as a particular emotion - and what codes/categories of response were associated with that response.
When asked what was hard about this - several of you pointed out that coming up with hypotheses was hard. Hypotheses are answers to questions about relationships in your data (what are the connections between age and emotions? what kinds of questions got the most detailed stories? what kind of information was contributed by off-topic talk? etc). To develop hypotheses - ask about relationships between categories and/or codes.
Analysis of Shaggy dog stories.
We started out with a review of two of the stories on the handout. You identified the following list of characteristics of shaggy dog stories (names for what they do/are)
- jokes
- play on words => mangling of a quote
- listeners have to know the quote to "get" it
- transliteration = switch of first letters of key nouns or names in the quote
- punchline is at the end (placement)
- switched words from the quote are introcuded at the beginning
- violence or startling interaction
- presented as a story with a beginning middle ending
- quote sums up or explains what the story means/is about/shows
- provides information so the listener buys into the new way to use the switched words
We then ranked the stories in terms of how funny we thought the stories were. 5 = funniest, 1 = not especially funny
# of votes for Funniest = 5 /4/3 /2 /1 = not funny
nate 1/4/4/4/1
friars 1/1/6/2/4
panda 7/4/-/1/2
Friday 5/3/-/2/4
chess -/2/4/5/3/
We then talked a little about what we thought made one joke funnier than another. You then worked in groups to identify features of the stories that made the stories "funny" (or not). Some categories for these features (along with some of the codes in those categories) from your notes include:
- characterization: codes = character actions (Nate's self sacrifice, Hugh beating the fiars), character identity (panda= thug; nate's integrity; nate = snake; Hugh brutal); visual image of character;
- plot
- listener's (personal) connection to the punchline
- ridiculous punchlines: don't make sense as they are stated but make sense with letters transposed; may be tongue twisters (as in florists); connect to a widely known quote; explain the story but the story is ridiculous
- qualities of the punchline (codes/names for features of the punchline= true, ridiculous, power to explain the story)
- timing (sequence of story events); beginning middle end, funny words need to be introduced in the beginning (code = introduction of punchline word), punchline is at the end
- development
- emotional response & features of the joke that cause the listener to be confused, surprised, shocked, satisfied (at figuring out the "twist" in the story) etc
- word choices (fpr example, words that have double meanings as in the panda joke; words that are the same with one or more letters switched
Within each category, you came up with features that contributed to the story being funny (or not). For example, stories that happened too quickly with without development that included characterization, connection to strong visual images, and a story line (as in the chess joke) will not be as funny as jokes that present a characters and images the listener can "see" along with an extended storyline that has a double/joke meaning - as in the panda story. Some of your categories formed larger categories. For example, categories for listener's connection to punchline, ridiculous punchlines, and qualities of the punchline all focus on punchlines or the ENDING. Timing, development, plot and characterization are mainly relevant to the INTRODUCTION + BODY/MIDDLE of the joke.
This exercise was to give you some experience developing the language/words + logic that you will use as evidence to support a theory about how the data works. For this exercise, theories were supposed to be about what makes a shaggy dog story funny.
Great class! You are doing good work on using coding, categorizing, looking for patterns and developing theories as a way to SLOW DOWN and WRITE ABOUT your analytic process in a way that you can share your ideas (and the way you developed them) with other researchers. Good job.
For next class:
Read: literacy narratives under Data Set 2 + the literacy narrative handout. As discussed in class, a literacy narrative is a story about the narrator's unfolding relationship to reading and writing over the course of a lifetime. Writing studies researchers use literacy narratives to gather information about what kinds of experiences support literacy learning.
Update Blog 4. DO NOT re-write it - simply add some additional writing at the end to state how you could strengthen and deepen the analysis you have posted.
Post Blog 5. In class, we looked at 5 shaggy dog stories, ranked which were funniest, and began an analysis to identify which features make shaggy dog stories funny. The analysis suggests which features seem funny in general, and the ranking gives an indication of what your CLASSMATES think is funny. For Blog 5, use the class ranking and our analysis of the funny features of shaggy dog stories as a basis for predicting how our class will rank the shaggy dog stories at this link.
Your analysis should identify features of the stories at the link that are similar to features of stories our work in class suggested as "preferred" by your classmates. In this analysis, your line of reasoning is at least as important as your conclusion.
Have fun!
No comments:
Post a Comment