User talk:Anbingham/sandbox

I think your information so far is well organized and understandable. I personally would like to see more information about feminist uses of narrative analysis as I imagine it has been used quite a bit in that field. But I'm not sure how much time you have to go into this. (Anson1492 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

In addition to tightening up the citations, as I suggested in the class email, you need to fill out the methods more. I do not understand what you mean by your first point. Also, you need to explain the process more - you present a Labov framework, but you do not tell me about how I determine what to use it for, or the steps of putting the information into the chart. Similarly, your information on cleaning up the narrative needs to be specific - what do each of those steps entail, what criteria does a researcher use for each? Looking at your current content of methods, I would not be able to start a narrative inquiry, let alone understand the steps for completing it. This needs a lot more detail, presenting a clear understanding of how to go about employing this process - I suggest you go through Polkinghorn with great detail, as you are also missing his distinction between narrative analysis and analysis of narrative. Heather Adams (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As already discussed, I think that you provide valuable information. One formatting thing I noticed is that the table in the middle of the methods section is not indented so it falls under the correct category. This makes it look as though it is out of place. Also, I am wondering if there are additional advantages and disadvantages to this type of analysis?? Otherwise, great work!! Emjwolfe (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

More specific comments: Methods - Your note is great! I think "researcher's" needs to be "researchers'" because it is plural. The last sentence is also a bit wordy ("as to how to"). How could you reword this? - Step 1 does not seem to be very informational. I am not quite sure how to do this or what it entails. You link it to "narrative" but it does not necessarily tell me how to do this step for narrative analysis. Be more specific. - Would you consider using something other than bullet points to organize your information? Some of it seems to be confusing because the bullet points are the same, and barely indented. Perhaps you could use separate headings or number the separate types of narrative organization to distinguish the different sections. - Step 2: See previous comment on the table. - Step 3: "Clean up, organize, structure, clarify, and condense to answer research question" What should you do this to? "Should compile a complete and understandable story/narrative to produce a plausible explanation with sufficient detail." WHO should do this? "The interpretation is co-created by the not only the interviewer but also with help from the interviewee." Take out second "the." How is this done? How does the interviewee help? - Table 2: I like the table, but the "criteria" category is not very clear. What exactly is this telling me about the listed paradigm?

Advantages & Disadvantages - Is there really only one disadvantage? I would suggest finding more of each.

Analysis of Narrative Versus Narrative Analysis - This heading is hard to navigate. I had to read it multiple times to realize what it really was going to be. Perhaps you could put " " around the two separate phrases. - I am assuming that this is under work right now because there is not much information.

Practices - I like that you expand to show how narrative analysis is useful for multiple types of social research. I am assuming that this is a "work-in-progress" too, but you need more information on how each field uses it to make it useful.

Overall, I think that you two have a great start! Keep your head up and keep working! Emjwolfe (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Should I merge "practices" with "advantages and disadvantages"? The practices really showcase the advantages of narrative analysis, so that would be my reasoning. Zakdavid18 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not just change "Advantage & Disadvantages" to "Criticisms" instead? Anbingham (Anbingham (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC))

Good idea, I'll add my "advantages" to "practices" (I also found a couple of things to add to that). I'm seriously struggling with finding sources for criticisms or finding more criticisms that aren't just general criticisms of qualitative research. Not entirely sure what to do with that. I got a couple of articles and I'm going to comb through Polkinghorne once again. Are we going to put this on the main page soonish? Zakdavid18 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll look to see if I can find more criticisms in the books I have. Having some issues coming to an agreement on what a proper methods section should look like, not sure when to post or if it will be possible. Waiting to hear back from Heather. Anbingham (Anbingham (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

Some notes on reading this:

1. Overall its still narrow in perspective. If you are going to have a partial list of methods then you need to indicate how it is partial. You don't (to take but one example) separate which methods which involve engagement or attempt detachment)
2. The assumption that raw data is interview transcripts is questionable, yes it can be the voice is important and audio transcribed is not the same thing - generally you should avoid asserting something as true for all, when in fact its true for those methods you are summarising
3. The same comment applies on your 'organise' section. The exclusion of outliers is one of the hot topic issues around research in general and you should not take a position. You also provide one authors view on which or a limited number of methods is best. You can't do that its partial
4. The table under Labov should be summarised, it distorts that entry
5. The interpret section has a good table, but then you go on to make assertions of universality. For example the 'finished product' statement. While each of your statements are referenced, they are also partial so if they are relevant indicate whose perspective they come from.
6. I assume the Criticism section is just notes, its far away from anything that could be criticised
7. Practices - you do a good job on the bullets in indicating how different approaches see things. The open paragraph however again makes universal statements

Hope that helps ----Snowded ^TALK 06:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Unless the source(s) that they're using say that it's a partial list of methods, then indicating how it's partial would be OR. I presume that each source cited lists its "own" method as "a method". Anyone interested can continue citing works and expanding the methods section, until the methods section is split off into its own article.
2. What'd they assert?
3. OR -- if the author says it, then that's what the author says. We can't argue with that ourselves, we can only cite other verifiable sources which say something else.
4. Sounds good.
5. That sounds good too.
6. Ok.
7. Sure.

Banaticus (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

At the moment it is a very partial selection and they are not using a source to indicate what they should include so its OR as it stands. We are required to at least represent the main strands in a field. The same applies to the point about transcripts. just getting a citation is not good enough per multiple policies. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)