More about transcription

There are many conflicts about the concept of transcription. I think that it can be explained with subjective nature of analytical attempt and cognition pursued and conducted by researchers. For this course, I have been trying to know and learn more about the varieties and types of digital technologies and software about the constellation of qualitative inquiry. I prefer to call as constellation because it is certainly difficult to make hierarchical procedure to get into the analysis and organization of inquiry and data. In this sense, all of the general categories/concepts in research practice includes and covers the reflexivity, collaboration, literature, generating data, transcription, analyzing the data (textual, audio and video) and representing data. They are so important that each of them has its own importance and light. In other words, each one is worth to think in a theoretically and practically.

Regarding these reasons and needs, I have looked at some forums to learn and investigate the new and most preferred software programs for transcribing the data. It is obvious that Express Scribe, EureScribe, MAXQDA, HyperTRANSCRIBE, MacSpeech Scribe, Dragon Naturally Speaking, InqScribe, Enhilez Medical Transcription, VoxSigma and Listen N Write are the top-10 programs in the forums.

Including Transana, most of them are also limited and insufficient about multi languages. VoxSigma might be only one which take care of multi languages and background noise. I know that these are technical and developing features in the digital industries and enterprises. For this post, I also needed to look at two papers which are specifically about Transana (Dempster & Woods, 2011; Woods & Dempster, 2011). Both of them are written by the same writers. They were very helpful to think about the organization, idea of data, types of transcriptions, collaboration, needs and so on. I really appreciated their examples to make it understandable and usable by the real data.

What made me critical and reflexive about the fallacies of information ages is that why the time is more important things? Theoretically, it is know that ‘thinking’ calls us towards its existence (I like Heidegger in this sense). In this sense, the matter should not be related with the time limitations for transcriptions, the effort constrains for research process and other practical concerns. On the other hand, it should be about learning thinking and the horizon of our cognitive processes for the communicative transcendent and intent to reach ‘meaning’ and ‘understanding’ framed and constructed by the context of social actions.

I think that we need to comprehend the notion of transcription as action since transcription should be seen as the action which is able to ferment all positions via thinking. I can say that other technical like the data would be transferred into textual nature with the advance of technology. For example, Transcriber Pro, one of the software program, can identify the face and sequences of face changes within the data. I saw it tutorial. This is the similar idea of facebook’s tagging of photographs. It seems that we might have all the descriptive and textual nature of data with the help of digital tools. Learning ‘thinking’ seems that it is going to be Everlasting for the sake of hermeneutic – analytical science.

 Dempster, P., & Woods, D. (2011). The Economic Crisis Though the Eyes of Transana. Forum: Qualitative Social  …. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=14385627&AN=58650829&h=a2A07LIVMOFS1Di9FFDQ2q2udgYixxyXvYKcUvbzD6ZqVTvLjQAunw6dq2S%2FWZnXH7AjVGIimhxB2vH%2F6nEkEQ%3D%3D&crl=c

Woods, D., & Dempster, P. (2011). Tales From the Bleeding Edge: The Qualitative Analysis of Complex Video Data Using Transana. … : Qualitative Social Research. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=14385627&AN=58650823&h=OQDnWufYz0DDLhjQcvw7FXchIPKOhJC3seGioTdZ3PxxiYiqm67AUUnDCxsuuanA%2FcsWwuXP5Nz7rzSyPB7iPA%3D%3D&crl=c

 

 

 

Prometheus

During our discussion, I learned many things in terms of ‘online-based research’ and ‘face-to-face’. There are many critical questions and fights in my mind when I think about the conditions and context of online learning. We can make a long and endless list of both advantages and disadvantages of ‘online-based’ and ‘face-to-face’ research. Even though I am not professional and knowledgeable person on new emerging research applications and methods, I am going to look at some practical and critical concerns for both in this post.

Face-to-Face and online research are not alternative for each other for me since both of them have its own ontological and epistemological settings. Positively, online technological developments enable researcher free and independent from the time-space. In other words, we do not need to worry about accessing to the rest of the world with the help of new research applications and environments. Survey, interview, naturally-occurring data are easily organized and developed in online environments. The nature of transactional distance and theory have been leading to change the traditional nature of ethnographies/inquiries. On the other hand, online environment is too open to be manipulated, distorted and controlled by the hegemonic power. This power emerges from the social-political-economic relations. For example, when we employ the online environment, we are assumed to be ‘already-there’ costumers. We cannot escape from being informed about the commodities and nature of capitalism. As we, all, know and experience that conducting research in online environment and data in those environments force us and our participants to be part of economic and defined strategic actions.

On the other hand, when I think that the disabled person who might potentially be researchers, participants, collogues, and collaborative academicians can design, conduct, improve their research the way in which ‘equality’, ‘equity’, ‘liberty’ and ‘democracy’ as research practice become more doable and visible in terms of ‘excluded’ individuals and societies. Let’s assume that we are conducting ‘co-coordinated’ research and knowledge labor practice by including disabled individuals, the member of other nations, and others in terms of gender and race. In such a research conducted in the online environment, we can reach more common and god sense truth for the sake of humanity. From this point of view, I want to keep my utopian dream for reaching the spirit of humanity by re-constructing and co-constructing the idea of academia as Prometheus.

Transcription?

Transcription is either conceivable or unconceivable thing.

Transcription is either bridgeable or unbridgeable thing between transcriber and data.

Transcription is either accurate or inaccurate to describe what has been said.

Transcription is either time consuming process or worth to consume time on touching the implicit meaning.

Transcription is either apprehensive moment or comprehensive transcend moment.

Transcription is either technical issue or intellectual concern to touch data.

Transcription is either action towards ‘word-as-spoken’ or action towards ‘sound-as-uttered’.

Transcription is either descriptive or interpretive.

Transcription is either complete or incomplete in terms of representing the raw data.

Transcription is either illocutionary movement or locutionary.

Transcription is either value-neutral or value-based.

Transcription is either the data-in-itself or the data-for-itself.

Transcription is either emotionally constructed or unemotionally constructed.

Transcription is alive (capturing emotions) or lifeless (without any emotions and attitudes).

Transcription is either normatively formulated or practically articulated.

Transcription is either a priori or a posterior.

Transcription is either Erlebnis (isolated/short term experience) or Erfahrung (visible/long term experience).

Transcription is either to analyze the data or for the analysis of the data.

 

Transcription is either transferable interactions between transcribers and data or transferable interactions between the transcribers and participants.

Transcription is either for the sake of researchers or the sake of researches.

Transcription is done either by the researcher or for the researcher.

Transcription is either theoretically oriented or not.

Transcription is either methodologically oriented or not.

Transcription is framed either by its own ethical principles or researchers and researches.   

Transcription is either subjectively or intersubjectively or objectively grounded.  

Transcription is either presence for validity or essence for validity

Transcription is either a mean for validity of the analysis or a process requiring validity.

Using Technology

In this sharing, I am going to discuss our per-assumptions that are able to mislead us to conduct our research by using the technological developments. As I have shared before, I want to tell the story about my family. Before I came to USA, my family did not have any internet connection and knowledge about it. They have been learning by practicing it. Both my mother and father are graduated only primary school and their age over 60-years-old. I did spend many hours to teach them how to call me via skype. They started to learn together, but I saw that my mother was more open and eager to learn how to use internet and computer. If she was not so eager about it, both of them were not successful to call me.

This learning process allows me to think about the excluded one who have never touch the mouse, keyboard and screen and how they become my participant in my research. In this sense, it is very important to have a ‘partnership with researchers from the remote locations in question are crucial to ensure the success of this method’(Gratton & O’Donnell, 2011). My mother helped me to set up and organize every important things that I needed to make videoconferencing with them. At the beginning, my two sisters, their families and my father and mother wanted to learn at the same time. It was similar with focus group. Sometimes, they were totally forget me on the screen. This means that they were not feeling closeness and privacy with me (Gratton & O’Donnell, 2011). As a member of my family, I am able to define our learning strategies and my questions at time as participatory action, but I felt that I did not have whole vision and sounds in the room. Although this experience is from my life, I would like to conduct videoconferencing as a form of data collection in order to understand my limitations and hesitations. I believe that it is two-sided process. In order to conduct relatively more successful research in ‘remote’ space, both sides should have knowledgeable partnership and collaboration to make it doable and manageable for the sake of intention.

In addition to this problem, I have many concerns and doubts about internet data. For example, the anonymity is the most important issue for me. There are many terminology for the fake account in the internet. We know that internet is very open place and unsecure for the data. Sometime, I feel worried and suspicious about those who are member of some web-groups. Data management is also important problem (Matthews & Cramer, 2008).

Note: This my first Mendeley usage for bibliography.

Gratton, M.-F., & O’Donnell, S. (2011). Communication technologies for focus groups with remote communities: a case study of research with First Nations in Canada. Qualitative Research. doi:10.1177/1468794110394068

Matthews, J., & Cramer, E. P. (2008). Using Technology to Enhance Qualitative Research with Hidden Populations. The Qualitative Report, 13, 301–315.

Open-source reference manager software

This week workshop was very helpful for me to understand the practical and technological issues about the reference manager. Before workshop, I had looked at some additional pages to figure out what kinds of software are available for managing the bibliography in my research interest and processes. In Wikipedia, I found very technical, descriptive and prescriptive information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software) . From this link, it is easy to compare them in terms of the technical needs and requirements that you want and you pursue for.

My problem about them is related with my personal preferences to support open-source software. I have been reading some forums to figure out the nurture of the production relations of software. For example, two weeks ago, I bought new laptop to use in my academic works. I was not sure about the operational systems. When I observe around me, I see that many people use Mac and its products. Actually, I want to use linux-open-office etc. in order to support the free. I know that those are collecting donations, this nature of them enable other people to use them too. What I mean that I regard internet as a new instrument to set and call the equality and to reframe our voluntarily contribution to production.

At the end, I decided to use Microsoft since I do not want to face incompatibility problems in academia. Thus, I felt the domination of two branches in this area and then I bought it. Now, I always have to make decision in terms of the Microsoft compatibility.

For me, knowledge is not similar with other materials; like tea. When someone wants to drink my tea, I would probably get less amount. When you share your knowledge, it probably become bigger since its development based on experiences and sharing, not based on consumption. So, even though, I have a Microsoft, I will use open-source reference manager software.

Wisdom means peace, common and good sense, equality, equity and solidarity.

literature review

“The most beautiful sea:
                   hasn´t been crossed yet.
The most beautiful child:
                   hasn´t grown up yet.
Our most beautiful days:
                   we haven´t seen yet.
And the most beautiful words

I wanted to tell you
                   I haven´t said yet...”

            September 24, 1945

Nazim Hikmet Ran

When I was a child, I watched my mother, aunts and other relatives who came together in order to weave a carpet. In a house, one of my aunts owned, there was a carpet tool, which was partly made from wood and iron. When someone found a suitable time, she probably sit down in front of the tool, and they went on weaving and tying every singular knot. For me, knowledge is a kind of big ontological structure, like a carpet, for which every minds try to make his/her contributions on academia. Let’s assume that every singular knot stresses the same relations for human consensual/shared cognition. Research as an empirical and analytical occupation, avocation and endeavor makes us to locate in a great discussion, which is an academia. For making some contributions, we need to clarify and check our thoughts, intentions, conceptions, communication and models in terms of the academia and common sense.

            Practically, we want to have some instruments to make knowledge and information understandable via languages, visible and demonstrable via writing tools like pens, books and press, discussable, renewable (Renaissance), revolutionary and changeable concerning the whole history of human sapiens. As a big chain, we have many many “IF” conditions for our research processes and intellectual developments. Firstly, we need to ‘locate and retrieve’ our theoretical, analytical and methodological locations and truth claims about our results. In order to make our thoughts and research processes, we need to ‘store and organize’ our both empirical and normative frames by writing literature review. By writing it, we try to make academically and intellectually illocutionary acts to reach mutual understandings with others and to invite them our truths about social phenomena about which we have been making research and claims. Third is about to understand and discuss the other researches, theories, methods and paradigms in terms of our research claims, reasons, and intentions. Finally, we try to reach the end where we need to communicate with all things, and then make them synthesis and critiques. “IF” conditions can be seen as normative structure for each steps.

In our readings, Anderson-Kaunkach (2003) underlines that literature review is defined as the presentation for the conceptual frameworks, theories, and previous research related to the topic in the research. In this sense, if our literature review is well written and organized, it is easy to be used by other researchers and it enables our theories, techniques, styles, processes and instruments discussable, visible and communicative in terms of “knowledge”.  I strongly agree with them about the nature of ‘accessibility’, ‘timeliness, ‘readability, ‘relevance’ and ‘authority’.  Boote-Beile (2005) emphases the same issues which I shared above. Collective understanding, generativity, frame, interpretation and etc. In addition to them, audiences and culture in terms of school and university are relatively discussed. I think that these ontological spheres which are who are audiences and in which culture you write are very important issues and they need to be discussed in terms of literature review.

the concept and practice of reflexivity

On February, 4, 2014 class, the concept and practice of reflexivity was discussed and evaluated in terms of its functions and importance for researcher. I found it very important to see the way in which researcher is able to map, frame and exhibit her own relations and existence with research. There may be many ways to keep it and make reflection to be accessible for participants, other groups for reaching understanding. Here, I am going to discuss the social action and reflexivity.

As it is defined in our text book, ‘reflexivity is the process of intentionally attending to perspectives, attitudes, beliefs that shape how your design a research study’. If I go further about this sentence and action that is carried in all social relations. Although internet presents itself as distance, the social relations are exist and reshape every meaning with and within it. In this sense, I want to use Habermas typology for social action that I thought in the class to help understand the foundational importance of reflection in qualitative studies. Social action is typically divided into two categories by Habermas. They are strategic and communicative action. Strategic action is also consist of two different types which are openly and latently strategic action. These claim that the goal manipulates the understanding since the action in these categories focuses on reaching goal, success and what doers want. The other category, communicative action, include two sub-categories which are action oriented toward reaching understanding and consensual action. I think that reflection is more about communicative action since the reflexivity enables us to communicate ourselves about the research processes and also communicate with other to reach understanding.

Thus, reflexivity is not only one part of the duties that we need to conduct, do and make during the research, but also philosophical and critical positionality to reach, construct and reconstruct the meaning with the help of the communication between ‘alter’ and ‘ego’ and also first person and second person.