Different Techniques of the Process of Data Analysis - Essay Example

? The research process Introduction Data collected from a research process needs to undergo analysis in order to obtain proper deduction form the research process. This data analysis is a process that involves the inspection, cleaning and transforming raw data collected with the main objective of deducting the required information. This information is crucial for use in various fields such as the development of hypothesis and justifying decision making (Ader, 2008). The process of data analysis has different techniques and approaches with different names and aspects. These different techniques mostly depend on the nature of raw data that are available, amongst other factors. In this paper, I chose to describe data analysis through the use of transcripts of some conversational data. The method of data analysis chosen for this requires an individual to have knowledge of analyzing this form of data. As such, I will describe the process of data analysis and its antique aspects through the use of conversational data analysis technique. This is a technique that is also sometimes referred to as ethno-methodological analysis of data. Though the two names sometimes use separate techniques, they encompass the same aspects. Conversational data analysis, as the name suggests, is a data analysis technique used in the analysis of data form conversational transcripts. As such, I am going to validate the various characters of this method and its aspects such as methodological techniques and issues that affect the analysis of data. In order to depict this, I will apply this technique in the practical analysis of an example passage of a transcript conversation. Conversational data analysis Conversational data analysis, sometimes known as CA, is the social interactions study approach focusing on both verbal and non-verbal social conducts as they occur in everyday life activities. This method of analysis started with the main focus on casual conversations among different people but with time it evolved. Currently, it constitutes various aspects of the social environment including institution centered interactions such as interactions within educational settings, the mass media, help lines, and law courts. It has with time developed into a distinctive and successful technique in the process of analysis of social interactions (Heritage, 1999). At the moment, conversational analysis of data is widely applied in various fields such as linguistics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and speech communication. This analysis method is particularly fundamental in aspects such as discourse analysis, discursive analysis, and interactional sociolinguistics. According to Livingstone (2009), conversational analysis tends to be unique as a result of its principal focus is mainly in discussing social interaction processes and does not take into account larger socio-cultural phenomenon or texts. It also aims at investigating the resources and techniques used in interactional participation in order to produce interactional contribution and justify others contributions. In general, it can be stated that conversational analysis is not aimed at investigating the interactions productions form an external perspective to the characters reasoning and understanding of their situation and communication. Rather, the main objective is to model the methods and resources that produce those understandings. Methodological strategies in conversational analysis Conversational analysis strategies lie in studying the sense making activities in characters that are especially prominent in the interaction. These interactive situations may be those with great differences, such as the existing expectations or competencies. On the other hand, interpretative tasks or practical behavior necessitates the extraordinary efforts by members to sense make on the conversation. The occurrence of these situations may be either as purposely created or naturally occurring. Another strategy was developed in order to avert the challenges that arise due to such experiments. It involves the creation of a controlled experiment where the researcher puts himself in a similar experimental experience, thus taking the course of becoming the phenomenon, the novice, or the stranger. As such, these may be situations that one has to master an unknown and difficult task, procedures of sense-making bound to fail, or where one guided by running members is to view the world in a natural way for them but not for the subject. Another strategy is one that involves observing and discussing of the closely related activities with the practitioners in their natural settings. This is a strategy that closely relates to traditional fieldwork. The set objective of this is to be able to study these activities routine and performances competency. Various forms of recording activities may be applied to further extend this study. The other study is one that involves the use of audio-visual equipment for mechanically recording the products of ordinary practices within the community. Then, there is the transcription of the recordings in manners that challenge procedures of common sense to perceiving what is being said and noting its formation. Orderly products location is through the use of transcriptions. The analyst needs to develop a device that can be utilized to produce the product and likewise phenomena (Harold, 2002). Developed Conversation transcription to be analyzed 01    A:    o:ka:y (..) so what would you like to discuss about 02    S:    I: am not so sure 03    A:    .hmm 04    S:    just pick any topic (..) 05    A:    .hmm w:: (.) what do we normally fan::c:y doing on s:undays 06    S:    Sunday (.) I (planned) we were traveling to pick the 07          (.) the parcels. 08    A:    yea:h (...) well w- we (.) talked about this or next Sunday 09          (...) er:: (..) bu:t Arsenal an::d (..) Barcelona are 10          playing on Sunday so: (...) .hh would not provide us ample 11          ti:me be back for three o clock (.) particularly if we 12          planned to: (.) go to into town 13    S:    m 14    A:    so (..) maybe next Sunday 15    S:    fine 16    A:    er:m (...) but we’ve planned the other thing: (...) 17    S:    ((sniff)) 18    A:    er::m (...) Sharon (.) and her husband visiting 19          at (.) noon time (...) for lunch 20    S:    .h oh (...) but (.) I still have to get moms parcel 21          mom’s parcel ((1 syllable)) 22    A:    mhm mhm 23    S:    an:d we er:: (..) well: I could either do that on Sunday 24          but (...) I presume (...) most of the offices might 25          be closed (...) 26    A:    on Saturday (...) me I am home all we- all= 27    S:    oh yes 28    A:    as from Tuesday 29    S:    oh ill do yeah (...) 30    A:    do you go:t er:m: (..) any plots 31    S:    Saturday (at home) 32    A:    m 33    S:    not really: (...) I’ve yet had no idea what to do (.) this coming week 34          (...) 35    A:    well: (.) assumedly though you’ll be going swimming (..) 36    S:    Maybe YEAH (.) at any time (...) 37    A:    how many parcels have you picked already (..) 38    S:    all except (...) mom’s (...) 39    A:    really 40    S:    yes Conversational analysis of the above transcript The symbols and presentation of the conversations wordings of a transcribed conversation are what are important in analyzing and deducting the nature of the conversation. Just as in any normal conversation reading the actual words of the conversation can produce knowledge on what it is about and the relating nature of the characters. Again, for better understanding, the symbols get analyzed as they appear in the conversation to present different aspects of the conversation. It is possible to deduct the emotion and situational condition at the time of the conversation through an analysis of the conversation symbols. The symbol of a bracket and dots within (.) represents the length of a pause within a sentence differentiating the length by the number of dots in the paragraph (as used extensively in the transcript). One dot (.) presents a micro pause of less than 0.5 seconds, two dots (..) a brief pause of between 0.5-1.0 seconds, and three dots (…) a pause of between 1.0-1.5 seconds. The difference in pause length shows the characters feeling about the subject matter. Short pauses present, normal speech pauses and long pauses indicate either the seriousness in statements to follow or unsure of the response thus; trouble shooting time. The use of a colon in between sounds such as in the word o:ka:y in line 1 of the conversation is a representation of the prolongation of sound prior to the colon. Such use of this technique could be applied to show uncertainty or unwillingness in the words response that the character is giving. It may also be a soft way to break the ice. As such, here the okay means that the character is trying to break the ice and get the other talking (Goodwin, 1999). Also, the use of a dot in front of a h word sound such as the word .h in line 20 of the conversation reflects an in breath at the speaking of that sound. The use of a word sound h without the dot in front of it reflects an out breath in the start of the statement. An in breath means that the person is in deep thought or burdened by the content statement that they are about to utter. Strengths and weaknesses of conversational data analysis The use of conversational analysis allows the analysis to occur at the level where the conversation occurs which is not quite attained by use of other methods. Conversational analysis is also an excellently grained tool which is a darned strong on precision on the analysis of data. On the other hand, the use of conversational analysis takes a lot of time and funds, taking into account of detailed presentation of information and the need for training for this (Chegloff, 1998). References Ader, H. (2008a) Data Analysis: Phases and Initial Steps in Data Analysis. London: Johannes van Kessel Publishing. Ader, H. (2008b) Advising on Research Methods: a Consultant's Companion. London: Johannes van Kessel Publishing. Beck, L. (1998) Data Analysis: an Introduction. New York: Sage Publications. Chegloff, E. (1998) Introduction: in Harvey Sacks, Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell publishers Fidell, L. (2007) Cleaning up Your Act: Screening Data Prior to Analysis. Boston: Pearson Education publishers. Goodwin, C. (1999) Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press. Harrold, G. (2002) Ethnomethodology's Program: Introduction. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Heritage, J. (1999) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (2010) Introduction: Current Developments in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Livingston, E. (2009) Data Analysis: Making Sense of Ethno-methodology. London: Routledge publishers. Read More