On May 14, 2004, at 8:54 AM, Kendall, Lori wrote: The objection raised by my students is usually that if people know I'm observing them, they will behave differently, and therefore I won't really find out "the truth." Ed notes: Lori's student to the side, "Labov's Paradox" has been around in the qual. literature for quite some time. There are LOTS of professional field researchers who would say, roughly, the same thing as do Lori's students. And they would back their claim with writing by Labov and others. Kendall, Lori wrote:
While you can observe some physical cues for emotional reactions (not available in many online situations), a better way to find out what things mean to people is to ask them. This can provide for much richer, more nuanced, and yes even *better* data.
Think I'd have to disagree with Lori on this claim that "a better way to find out what things mean is to people is to ask them." I don't want to get into a long one on this . . . but I think that there are a wide range of qualitative approaches to this claim. For example, from both (some) ethnomethodological AND conversation analytic perspectives, behavior in context comes, over time, to present (through the behavior, responses to it, outcomes, etc.) the way that it "means" quite aside from what people in the cohort would say about it. Further, there is an extended literature concerning "accounts" and "accounting" that makes very clear that there are often dramatic differences between what in situ subjects will SAY something means to them (account) and the meaning the behavior actually has in context (based on what gets done with the behavior). Finding out what account actors give is not the same as finding out what they mean by/in using the behavior. I'm not, here, arguing that covert observation is always better than self-identified PA. However, I am taking issue with Lori's claim that asking people is a better way to find out what things mean. I'm also most interested in meaning in use and that is why I most often use qualitative rather than quantitative approaches. But asking for explanations is NOT always the best way to discover meanings-in-use. There are circumstances in which unobtrusive observation produces a lot of high quality data about meaning-in-use. Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Director, Multimedia Program and New Media Center Associate Professor, Speech Communication 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~ell http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/