1)  What kind of quality differences might there be doing research through digital collections rather than “live” research in physical archives or spaces?

2)  How can we “live the research” in any research project, not just historical?

3)  How does Rohan implement feminist methods in her research?

1) How could the NLG’s concept of literacy as “design” be used for activist ends?

2) As I was reading Wysocki’s article, I remember that Jay David Bolter explains, in his book Writing Space, that we are living in “the late age of print.” Wysocki more or less supports this statement, especially towards the end of her article. How does this fact about our society impact future research practices? Research methods?

3) How could McKee and Blair’s findings be applicable to other demographic populations?

1)  In Cushman’s “Critical Literacy…”, she waits to identify her subject positioning until nearly halfway into the document (252).  Is this a significant issue, especially considering her ethnographic method?  Why might she have chosen to wait to identify her positioning?

2)  Cushman explains her triangulation as (1) observation, (2) getting feedback on her observation from outsiders to the project who are familiar with that kind of situation, and (3) getting feedback on her observation from those being observed (254).  What other methods could be used to triangulate just as effectively?

3)  In “Rhetorician…”, how well does Cushman position herself?  How does she convince us (or does she convince us) that we should listen to a graduate student (especially one who talks with the confidence and experience of a seasoned veteran in the field)?  What kind of evidence does she provide to persuade us of her authority?  Or is her positioning unimportant to her argument?

1. Lauer and Asher mention there are two different roles the researcher can play in an ethnography: being a participant observer, and being an outside observer. Is there a difference of validity between ethnographies with a participant observer and ethnographies with an outside observer?

2. Is reliability even possible in any ethnography design? If so, how? If not, why not?

3. Because ethnography is one of the only methods which is highly conscious of the researcher’s role in the community, could it be argued that ethnography is a more valid form of research than other forms?

1.  Grant-Davie explains that “various kinds of coding, including division and classification, occur at all stages in a research study” (274).  Does this mean that coding is a recursive process?

2.  How would you define coding—as science, as interpretation, or as a balance between?  What kind of definition would aid in solving issues related to reliability and validity?

3.  Lauer and Asher explain the two options available in measurement:  use an already established method, or develop a new one.  Their argument is in support of using an established method, but I wonder if that would limit or hinder the quality of a researcher’s results.  Haven’t the most groundbreaking and successful projects been using a newly-developed measure?

1.  What are the quality differences between the various methods we’ve been studying?  Do these differences in quality (meaning, the quality of the data obtained) significantly impact our research results?

2.  Lauer and Asher recommend, when initially running a questionnaire or survey, to use questions which have been found previously to be useful (65).  I find this to be a problem, as it seems to be mostly doing research that’s already been done.  Logically, I don’t understand how asking a certain population questions that have been asked before will result in original research.  How could this work to our advantage?

3.  Lauer and Asher briefly mention Project TALENT, a research project done in 1972 and the data of which is mostly untouched (77).  How (in what situation) would it be useful to go back to data that’s a couple of decades old?  What pros or cons are there?

1.  Grounded theory, as Neff describes it, seems almost overwhelming and too complex—does its openness to complexity hinder its being useful to researchers and to readers of research?
2. When would it be most appropriate to use grounded theory—only when attempting to build new theory?  Or are there other uses for it?
3. Comparing the explanations of grounded theory that Strauss and Corbin give it and Neff gives it, they seem to contrast in tone.  While both texts are very positive towards use of the theory, Strauss and Corbin really do a lot to idealize it, especially in the first section of the book.  When I read Neff, I thought, “ugh.  Sounds like a lot of work.”  But when I read Strauss and Corbin, I thought, “wow, this grounded theory stuff could save the world.”  Do you believe these are two different perspectives on grounded theory, or are they writing for different rhetorical purposes (Strauss and Corbin are trying to defend its existence, while Neff is trying to inform us)?