Computer Mediated Research

When research is conducted over the internet, utilizing new media methods and resources, observing web communities, utilizing online journals and online collaborative spaces, when research observes web users in their own interactive space, we might call it computer mediated research.  I'm unsure whether computer mediated research is defined as research that uses computers for research or research gathered through the internet, or research that is gathered about individuals' interactions with computers.

NMSU course evaluations

I expected that we, as a class, would be able to improve upon the standard English Department course evaluation survey, or at least find a few simple tweaks that would potentially garner better answers.  What I didn't expect to find was that the process of reworking the survey would mean really reworking it, entirely rethinking what data the survey hoped to gather and possibly reformatting the entire form.  I left the class with more questions than I entered with, which is probably a good thing.  I realized that in order to know how to rework the form we would need to know specifically what data was important and to whom that data would be important.  That's an obvious insight, I know.  Still, I assumed that we would know enough about the recipients of the data to predict what answers they would find most helpful.  In reality, I think that would mean first putting together a survey for the potential data recipients since, in the case of this "survey to determine a survey", we would be the recipients of the data and would know (at least in part) what data we would need.

We talked about a focus group as well, one that involved teachers and administrators who would likely be using the data.  In a focus group or in interviews we could discuss what information would be important to those individuals and perhaps plan the survey that would lead us to data to plan the course survey that would lead to data that would help the individuals in the focus group and their colleagues. (Whew!)  Without that knowledge it became difficult to really rework the course survey.  We tried to balance students' comfort with the questions with strategies to create more productive questions and we tried to figure out the best balance of the more quantitative A through F system (which may give unfairly biased and half-assed answers) with the open-ended questions that should yield more thorough information (though they also lead to half-assed smiley faces etc.)  In the end I think that the information we were lacking that would have been most helpful (besides the previously mentioned insight into the minds of a larger number of teachers and administrators) was a chance to see the course evaluations from a variety of other classes both outside our department and outside our school.  There has to be someone out there who has looked into this extensively and produced a highly useful version of the English department course evaluation survey that could be modified to suit our situation.

Focus Groups

Something I don't always admit to my classmates is that for almost five years (2001-2005) I worked full-time in marketing for Red Bull energy drink.  I dealt with sales accounts, collected market data by talking face to face with consumers, and I sometimes even drove that ridiculous car with the can on the back.  Part of my duties was to conduct "informal" focus groups.  That is, I set up stations at events that somehow met the needs of the participants or employees at the location, (If it was a foot race, I set up a station with comfy chairs, water, and of course, free red bull) ,I gathered groups of people together by enticing them with the station, and I guided them in a discussion about our products in order to pass along data to our headquarters.  My job in these cases was half consumer education and half data collection.  It was extremely important that our discussions never come across as focus groups, but that is exactly how they functioned.  I was to always try to talk to a group rather than an individual and observe their interactions and concerns.  If one person thought that red bull was a high caffeine drink then I needed to wait and see if one of the others had heard otherwise and would correct him/her.  I watched thousands of people read the ingredients and reported back what the most common comments were.  I gave reports on who mentioned the commercials and how they liked them or how many people noticed that Lance Armstrong's helmet had a red bull logo when he won the Tour de France.  I would sometimes ask offhand when was the last time the individual used red bull and for what purpose. When ephedra became illegal sometime in 2002 I got instructions to keep track of the percentage of consumers who asked if red bull contained the illicit substance.  My reports included my estimate of the person's age, their job, where I met them and whether they recommended or condemned the drink to others in the group.  I was gauging peoples reactions for data that I would never be a part of analyzing.
The main limitation of such research is the same as many focus groups.   I was already dealing with a certain subsection of culture:  people who were willing to chat with me while drinking a free energy drink.  We discussed this in class.  You are likely to only gather data from those who are already willing to take part in such a thing as a focus group.  You aren't likely to gather data from the wealthy with a promise of $20 or a free pizza.  When the ephedra scare happened, I noticed a huge decrease in the number of people willing to even touch a free energy drink.  Still, when it worked, I believe, it worked magnificently.  There was real dialogue between people.  A group of students might say to me, "Man, I could use something like this during finals," and bam, we would begin preparing a campaign to get the drink all over campus during finals week.

I mentioned once in class that Alfred Kinsey got around this shortcoming with an approach that is considered highly unethical today (and probably to his contemporaries as well).  He would offer a sum of money to an organization, like a bowling league or church group in exchange for all their members to participate in his surveys.  This was survey research but the same difficulty applies to focus groups. Those who didn't want to be involved simply wouldn't.  Kinsey and his fellow researchers would obtain the roster of whatever organization they were soliciting and would refuse to give them the promised compensation unless every person on the roster agreed to be interviewed.  If there were a few hold outs, then the bowling league or church group or whatever the organization may be, would threaten to kick out whoever didn't participate.  This is a bullshit practice but it yielded nearly perfect sample.  There was almost no one who would refuse to take part in his study.  Because we can't do what Kinsey did we have to deal with the lingering thought that we may always be collecting data on a certain type of person.  Increasing the sample size, variety of locations, types of advertisement for the focus group, even types of compensation, we may reduce our risk of getting the same types of people.
I'm not particularly proud of the research I did with Red Bull, selling something has never felt very fulfilling to me.  It was a job and at least I learned the skills of talking to people, gauging reactions, and collecting data.  I hope that I can use those skills in the future for something more beneficial.

Post Positivist?

I must admit, my decision to take our class was at least partly based on my belief that I am an empiricist.  That is, I have difficulty believing that we have anything but input from our senses to judge reality by.  I do believe in capital "T" Truth.  Though, I believe that there is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to this notion.  I don't believe in relative truth and as I've discussed this with many people, relativist and absolutist, I've come to realize that most people believe the exact same things about truth and that the problem is semantic.
 I was curious about the nature of empirical research and how it fits into the world of rhetoric and composition.  I stated once in class that I believe that quantitative research has more "weight", more definitive value than qualitative research.  I can see though that this assumption is based on my own values.  This brings me to my self evaluation and position among the researcher definitions we've been discussing.  Dr Almjeld stated once that "some people are comforted by numbers" (or something like that) and that statement clearly suits me.  I am more likely to value quantitative research because I prefer to begin with those facts that we can definitely know.  This attitude is likely more useful in the sciences or ethics or sports or any discipline with a paradigm that relies on formal logic/math.  I'm not sure if rhet/comp fits in that category yet.  After our discussions and and readings I see that the field of rhet/comp still has some decisions to make on that avenue as well.

To be clear, I'm not saying that studies with too-broad implications and weak mathematical conclusions should be favored simply because they are quantitative.  I do believe that more practical value can be wrought by a good qualitative study in the right circumstances and, most importantly, with the understood disclaimer that, as many of you have pointed out, what works in one circumstance may not work again.  I believe that there is always value in greater understanding of our research subjects and qualitative research can of course facilitate that understanding.   However, I do believe (this is going to get weird) that our eventual understanding of the world will come down to an understanding of math.  This is a strange concept, I know, though many philosophers share this belief.  Bertrand Russel is one of my favorites in this school of thought. Much of my fiction deals with this belief as it is emerging into our consciousness.

I brought up wildlife sciences as an example of a discipline where quantitative research has taken over a field where qualitative once ruled.  Below is an example.  Many scientists are discovering that math rules even the behavior of animals in a way we never before imagined.  Enjoy, feel free to tear me apart.

Prairie dogs understood through math

Some other relevant things I believe:

New Mysterianism

Desert-Adjusted Utilitarianism

Researcher claims "not enough science" in learning-styles studies

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08/29/139973743/think-youre-an-auditory-or-visual-learner-scientists-say-its-unlikely

Anyone see this on NPR?  I'd like to know why Dr. Willingham considers previous qualitative research into learning styles as inconclusive.  The NPR article doesn't give any real details and the link to http://www.psychologicalscience.org , where his analysis is published, is overloaded and won't load.

My experience with research

When I heard the words "research", "subject", or "study" the first thing that always comes to mind is a place in my past that I'm not particularly proud of.  Let's just say that many years ago when I began my undergrad studies I was a "research subject" for a medical "study" that resulted in enough money to cover my first year of tuition.  My mother, and others who love me have since convinced me to turn to hard work and/or borrowing in order to stay in school, rather than being poked and prodded.  In truth, working as a pharmaceutical test subject is not as scary and dangerous as it sounds but, those of us who've been there like to encourage the fear and mystique associated with it.  This ensures that, should we ever need to return to our lives as guinea pigs, the pool of other applicants will still be small and the money will still be substantial.  More on methods to come...