The purpose of the study conducted by Lawrence, Harrison and Stone was to uncover the perceptions that typical college students have about college athletes. With the word 'perception' also comes the word 'stereotype,' and that is the central theme behind the article. A stereotype is defined as, "as an exaggerated belief associated with a category. Its function is to justify (rationalize) our conduct in relation to that category."
As I was reading the section at the beginning about the Perceptual Confirmation Paradigm (PCP), I couldn't help but to somewhat smile. I have had multiple conversations with friends and others of the same race and around the same age. The majority of the people I've had conversations with about racial stereotypes basically don't like to acknowledge the stereotypes exist. I have used an example that I heard from a guest lecturer many times while having this conversation. His example dealt with a study done with employers reviewing the resumes of applicants. The research team put together resumes that had practically identical credentials, including the same quality education, the same amount of experience and the same skill set. The main difference on each resume was the name attached to the top. Half of the resumes included typically "white" sounding names (John, David, Jeff), while the other half of the resumes included typically "black" sounding names (Jamal, Tyrone, Malcolm). I don't remember the exact numbers, but the results were significant. Employers, from all types of companies, regularly would invite the "white" sounding names in for interviews over the "black" sounding names.
Until reading this article, I had never developed a sport-specific example. The article explains how white participants were asked to evaluate a basketball players talents based on listening to a radio broadcast of the contest. Half of the participants were told the player to evaluate was white, and the other half was told the player was black. The participants who thought the athlete was white used terms like "less athletic ability," "court smarts" and "hustle." The perceived black athlete was said to have more athletic ability and less court smarts. Keep in mind, this was the same athlete. As I've mentioned, this is an unbelievable example to show that stereotypes exist whether or not we are willing to believe they do or not.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sparkes and Smith Article
The basis of this article deals with how a qualitative researcher can deem research "good." Sparkes and Smith look at two different types of researcher to come to a conclusion. The first type of researcher is a criteriologist and the second type is a relativist.
A criteriologist, as the name suggests, judges the quality of research based on "permanent and universal" criteria. To this person, a clear cut algorithm must be predetermined in order to properly judge the quality of the research. After evaluating the research, the criteriologist then has a very basic yes or no answer. The research is good, or the research is bad.
The relativist, similar to the criteriologist, does believe that criteria should be used in evaluating research. However, the difference comes in that that relativist "does not believe that these criteria should be determined in advance of any particular piece of inquiry." In this type of evaluation, the relativist cannot determine definitely that the research is 'good' or 'bad.' For the relativist, evaluation of the research is contingent on the time and place of evaluation and the circumstances in which the research is collected.
The authors of this article are much in favor of the relativistic approach to evaluating qualitative research. They claim that criteriological research is crippling, as it does not allow for conversation and inhibits creativity. In a nutshell, criteriology allows for no thinking 'outside the box.' In contrast, relativism allows for creativity, conversation, and the development of potentially better ideas.
I also side with the relativistic approach. I will use the idea of women in sports as an example to illustrate my point. The 'research' and the thoughts of the early 1900s most likely were consistent that women should not participate in sports as men could. With a criteriological approach, the same universal and predetermined ideas of that time would carry over forever. However, taking a relativistic approach and allowing 'time' and 'place' to be factors in the quality of research, discussion, experimentation and action have occurred which obviously diminish the quality of thought in the early 1900s.
Without relativism, we never allow ourselves to evolve. This isn't just true in research. This is true in sports, music, style, theater, business, etc.
A criteriologist, as the name suggests, judges the quality of research based on "permanent and universal" criteria. To this person, a clear cut algorithm must be predetermined in order to properly judge the quality of the research. After evaluating the research, the criteriologist then has a very basic yes or no answer. The research is good, or the research is bad.
The relativist, similar to the criteriologist, does believe that criteria should be used in evaluating research. However, the difference comes in that that relativist "does not believe that these criteria should be determined in advance of any particular piece of inquiry." In this type of evaluation, the relativist cannot determine definitely that the research is 'good' or 'bad.' For the relativist, evaluation of the research is contingent on the time and place of evaluation and the circumstances in which the research is collected.
The authors of this article are much in favor of the relativistic approach to evaluating qualitative research. They claim that criteriological research is crippling, as it does not allow for conversation and inhibits creativity. In a nutshell, criteriology allows for no thinking 'outside the box.' In contrast, relativism allows for creativity, conversation, and the development of potentially better ideas.
I also side with the relativistic approach. I will use the idea of women in sports as an example to illustrate my point. The 'research' and the thoughts of the early 1900s most likely were consistent that women should not participate in sports as men could. With a criteriological approach, the same universal and predetermined ideas of that time would carry over forever. However, taking a relativistic approach and allowing 'time' and 'place' to be factors in the quality of research, discussion, experimentation and action have occurred which obviously diminish the quality of thought in the early 1900s.
Without relativism, we never allow ourselves to evolve. This isn't just true in research. This is true in sports, music, style, theater, business, etc.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Stream of Consciousness
One thing I was asked to do was to just write about the things I enjoy and whatever else comes to mind. What are some things that I might enjoy researching? Let's find out.
The one thing that I always thought I wanted to study was race. This probably came to me after I came to Ohio Northern. Seems strange, right? Well when I came here, it was sort of a reverse culture shock (if that exists). I am from Middletown, Ohio. Very different from Ada. In Middletown, there are roughly 55,000 people. In Ada, there are about 5,000. In Middletown, there are people from all race and social statuses. In Ada and at Ohio Northern, most of the people are cut from the same breed. I joke around with my friends a lot of the time that there are too many white people here from me. It usually generates some chuckles. Anyways, the lack of culture here made me want to share my experiences from Middletown to the people here who had never experienced it. With that happening, I also wanted to learn more about race myself.
Another thing I am very intrigued by is figuring out the question, "Why do people do the things they do?" This would deal with psychological factors mostly. What previous experiences hve made a person make that decision now? Why would they fold in this situation? Why would they excel in another situation? Why would they treat this type of person in a particular way? Why does this person interact this way in this situation as opposed to another situation? All of these questions (and many more) are very interesting to me.
Since I've een at ONU, I've been around a lot of great sports teams, including playing on some myself. I was a part of a national championship team and was the captain for that team. I've also seen some other talented teams do not so well in the NCAA Tournament. On the other hand, I've seen other over matched teams make deep runs in the tournament. This begs the question, what makes one team more successful than another team if the talent level is nearly equal? How much do team dynamics matter? How much does coaching technique matter? What is the most important ingredient to team success? Does it all start with strictly recruiting? Do coaches have the most impact on the outcome? Or do the players decide all contests?
These are just a few of the thoughts that I've had today and over the years. Maybe one of my biggest issues is that I really enjoy a wide variety of things. This is an issue when narrowing down an area of research to just one topic, and it is still the issue. Hopefully I will think of something really soon.
The one thing that I always thought I wanted to study was race. This probably came to me after I came to Ohio Northern. Seems strange, right? Well when I came here, it was sort of a reverse culture shock (if that exists). I am from Middletown, Ohio. Very different from Ada. In Middletown, there are roughly 55,000 people. In Ada, there are about 5,000. In Middletown, there are people from all race and social statuses. In Ada and at Ohio Northern, most of the people are cut from the same breed. I joke around with my friends a lot of the time that there are too many white people here from me. It usually generates some chuckles. Anyways, the lack of culture here made me want to share my experiences from Middletown to the people here who had never experienced it. With that happening, I also wanted to learn more about race myself.
Another thing I am very intrigued by is figuring out the question, "Why do people do the things they do?" This would deal with psychological factors mostly. What previous experiences hve made a person make that decision now? Why would they fold in this situation? Why would they excel in another situation? Why would they treat this type of person in a particular way? Why does this person interact this way in this situation as opposed to another situation? All of these questions (and many more) are very interesting to me.
Since I've een at ONU, I've been around a lot of great sports teams, including playing on some myself. I was a part of a national championship team and was the captain for that team. I've also seen some other talented teams do not so well in the NCAA Tournament. On the other hand, I've seen other over matched teams make deep runs in the tournament. This begs the question, what makes one team more successful than another team if the talent level is nearly equal? How much do team dynamics matter? How much does coaching technique matter? What is the most important ingredient to team success? Does it all start with strictly recruiting? Do coaches have the most impact on the outcome? Or do the players decide all contests?
These are just a few of the thoughts that I've had today and over the years. Maybe one of my biggest issues is that I really enjoy a wide variety of things. This is an issue when narrowing down an area of research to just one topic, and it is still the issue. Hopefully I will think of something really soon.
Inglis Article
I basically just wanted to outline the five steps of qualitative research according to Inglis as suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1982).
The first is that the research should take place in the most natural setting. If I am observing a practice, the most natural setting would be for the team and coaches to be where they usually are. Also, if I am somewhat hidden from their vantage points, they will not notice me and practice like usual with the usual dynamic involved.
The second is that the data should maintain its original meaning. This can be done with still photos, video, documentation and transcripts. If I take video of a practice, I can refer back to that when trying to answer questions as opposed to having to recall everything from memory.
The third deals with the process that the data is collected as opposed to the data itself. If I'm worried about data or a specific result, I might have a bias going into the process. However, if I only focus on my method of collecting information, I can deal with the results later and not worry about swaying my opinion at the time.
The fourth deals with theories being born through induction. Through observation, the researcher can come to conclusions based on reasoning and evaluating what occurred during the observation.
The last one involved the meaning of the information. This does not necessarily mean the meaning for the researcher but for the participants. I should ask myself, "How did the events of my observations get perceived by those I was observing?"
The first is that the research should take place in the most natural setting. If I am observing a practice, the most natural setting would be for the team and coaches to be where they usually are. Also, if I am somewhat hidden from their vantage points, they will not notice me and practice like usual with the usual dynamic involved.
The second is that the data should maintain its original meaning. This can be done with still photos, video, documentation and transcripts. If I take video of a practice, I can refer back to that when trying to answer questions as opposed to having to recall everything from memory.
The third deals with the process that the data is collected as opposed to the data itself. If I'm worried about data or a specific result, I might have a bias going into the process. However, if I only focus on my method of collecting information, I can deal with the results later and not worry about swaying my opinion at the time.
The fourth deals with theories being born through induction. Through observation, the researcher can come to conclusions based on reasoning and evaluating what occurred during the observation.
The last one involved the meaning of the information. This does not necessarily mean the meaning for the researcher but for the participants. I should ask myself, "How did the events of my observations get perceived by those I was observing?"
Agar Article
I will say that I definitely enjoyed most of the Agar article. There were three points that I want to touch on in this post.
The first is the thought about eye contact. I found it interesting that eye contact can mean different things in different settings. It was odd at first, but after thinking more, it made sense. Pretty much everything we do in life can be construed differently in other cultures. One simple example deals with women in the United States compared to those in some middle eastern nations. Here, women can dress how they wish. There, women are restricted to wearing certain items and must cover their faces. In the U.S., we think nothing of women wearing business attire with her hair done and makeup on her face. There, some men might be a little upset (to put it extremely mildly). In dealing with eye contact, this is a very clear cut issue for me here. If someone is staring at me, as was the case for Agar, I would have a problem with it here. I would feel uncomfortable and suspect that the person is extremely curious about me. In other situations, eye contact is not only welcomed, but expected. I would expect a presenter or speaker to give proper eye contact. Likewise, I would expect both parties of an interview or conversation to give eye contact. Not giving eye contact in these situations would shoe me a sign of disrespect or indifference.
The next idea I wanted to talk about was how forming questions can reveal a person's intelligence. When someone asks me a question, it is pretty apparent how much they know about the topic they are asking about. If its a basic question, they may not know much. If the question has detail that reveals some information, then the person might have some knowledge. Also, the timing and tone of the question can tell me about the person. Let's look at the Jim Calhoun example I've alluded to before. The reporter asked Calhoun about his salary after a game. This was not the right place to approach this situation. The reporter was not concerned about the answer as much as he was trying to get under the skin of Calhoun. This showed little tact. If he really wanted to know about the salary, a more private venue would have been better. The tone of the question is also important. The person can show him/herself to be sarcastic, sincere, confused, intelligent, etc. all by the tone of their voice.
The last thing I wanted to touch on was that multiple perspectives on a situation are better than just one. The biases and differing view points will be able to more completely assess the situation. My opinions will be formed based on my experiences. Another person might have different opinions because of their experiences. When we combine our thoughts, we can discuss both viewpoints and see which one makes more sense for the situation as opposed to sticking with what we believe individually.
The first is the thought about eye contact. I found it interesting that eye contact can mean different things in different settings. It was odd at first, but after thinking more, it made sense. Pretty much everything we do in life can be construed differently in other cultures. One simple example deals with women in the United States compared to those in some middle eastern nations. Here, women can dress how they wish. There, women are restricted to wearing certain items and must cover their faces. In the U.S., we think nothing of women wearing business attire with her hair done and makeup on her face. There, some men might be a little upset (to put it extremely mildly). In dealing with eye contact, this is a very clear cut issue for me here. If someone is staring at me, as was the case for Agar, I would have a problem with it here. I would feel uncomfortable and suspect that the person is extremely curious about me. In other situations, eye contact is not only welcomed, but expected. I would expect a presenter or speaker to give proper eye contact. Likewise, I would expect both parties of an interview or conversation to give eye contact. Not giving eye contact in these situations would shoe me a sign of disrespect or indifference.
The next idea I wanted to talk about was how forming questions can reveal a person's intelligence. When someone asks me a question, it is pretty apparent how much they know about the topic they are asking about. If its a basic question, they may not know much. If the question has detail that reveals some information, then the person might have some knowledge. Also, the timing and tone of the question can tell me about the person. Let's look at the Jim Calhoun example I've alluded to before. The reporter asked Calhoun about his salary after a game. This was not the right place to approach this situation. The reporter was not concerned about the answer as much as he was trying to get under the skin of Calhoun. This showed little tact. If he really wanted to know about the salary, a more private venue would have been better. The tone of the question is also important. The person can show him/herself to be sarcastic, sincere, confused, intelligent, etc. all by the tone of their voice.
The last thing I wanted to touch on was that multiple perspectives on a situation are better than just one. The biases and differing view points will be able to more completely assess the situation. My opinions will be formed based on my experiences. Another person might have different opinions because of their experiences. When we combine our thoughts, we can discuss both viewpoints and see which one makes more sense for the situation as opposed to sticking with what we believe individually.
Denzin Article
Quite frankly, this was a difficult article to sift through. However, one sentence resonated with me more than the others. On page 29, the authors say, "The search for grand narratives is being replaced by more local, small-scale theories fitted to specific problems and particular situations," (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). This sentence is found under the fifth moment, the postmodern period of experimental ethnographic writing.
For the longest time, I've always told people I want to be some sort of "field expert." I tell them that I just want to know more about something than anyone else. This could be anything at this point in my life. I think the sentence above is indicative of my long-time wishes.
It seems at this point in history, now towards the end of the moments of research so far, most "grand narratives" have been written. Obviously there are still things that need to be generalized in a big way, but I believe more topics regarding specific ideas are what need to be researched. For example, a grand narrative before could have been "Why do high school athletes pursue a collegiate career in sports?" That is very broad and all-encompassing. Now, people would like to answer more specific questions. Staying with the same sort of example, a question could be "Why do high school athletes choose to play football, basketball or baseball at the Division III level?" This question is much more specific and deals with a smaller group of people.
These are just examples, but it would go along with my wish to be the most knowledgeable about one thing. Is it possible to know why high school athletes play sports? To an extent, the answer is yes. However, the population of college athletes is much greater than those playing college football, basketball, and baseball and the Division III level.
So, for whatever I end up wanting to study, I think I want it to be something more specific than general.
For the longest time, I've always told people I want to be some sort of "field expert." I tell them that I just want to know more about something than anyone else. This could be anything at this point in my life. I think the sentence above is indicative of my long-time wishes.
It seems at this point in history, now towards the end of the moments of research so far, most "grand narratives" have been written. Obviously there are still things that need to be generalized in a big way, but I believe more topics regarding specific ideas are what need to be researched. For example, a grand narrative before could have been "Why do high school athletes pursue a collegiate career in sports?" That is very broad and all-encompassing. Now, people would like to answer more specific questions. Staying with the same sort of example, a question could be "Why do high school athletes choose to play football, basketball or baseball at the Division III level?" This question is much more specific and deals with a smaller group of people.
These are just examples, but it would go along with my wish to be the most knowledgeable about one thing. Is it possible to know why high school athletes play sports? To an extent, the answer is yes. However, the population of college athletes is much greater than those playing college football, basketball, and baseball and the Division III level.
So, for whatever I end up wanting to study, I think I want it to be something more specific than general.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Seidman article and Theberge article
I just read through Seidman's article dealing with the keys to a successful interview. The principles applied in this article remind me very much to a book I am reading at the moment. I am halfway through Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. The common theme throughout is to show genuine interest in people. One way to do that is to be a good listener, as is mentioned several times in Seidman's article as well. Most people are mainly interested in theirself and that's it. So if you are willing to understand that fact, listen to someone, and be genuinely interested, the person will then feel more comfortable and enjoy your company. This will lead to more productive interviews.
The article by Theberge had some very interesting segments. I'd say the parts that I felt most interesting were the personal accounts from the athletes that were studied. We always hear athletes say, "I'm in the best shape of my life." However, being in that shape doesn't necessarily equate to being healthy. The argument is that in order to be a top-tier athlete, you must push the body beyond healthy limits. The comment is made by one athlete in the article that someone doing yoga and running a few times a week is probably healthier than an NFL athlete. I had never thought about this situation in such a light, but it really makes sense. It is well documented that professional athletes have troubled retirement years because their bodies are so worn down, but we don't think of them as unhealthy while they are competing at such a high level. If they end up that way when they are older, though, they are probably doing unhealthy things during their careers. Also, this reasoning might be an explanation as to why we experienced the steroid era. Athletes felt using these steroids would help protect their bodies from later deterioration (even though I'm sure most were interested in the short-term benefits).
The article by Theberge had some very interesting segments. I'd say the parts that I felt most interesting were the personal accounts from the athletes that were studied. We always hear athletes say, "I'm in the best shape of my life." However, being in that shape doesn't necessarily equate to being healthy. The argument is that in order to be a top-tier athlete, you must push the body beyond healthy limits. The comment is made by one athlete in the article that someone doing yoga and running a few times a week is probably healthier than an NFL athlete. I had never thought about this situation in such a light, but it really makes sense. It is well documented that professional athletes have troubled retirement years because their bodies are so worn down, but we don't think of them as unhealthy while they are competing at such a high level. If they end up that way when they are older, though, they are probably doing unhealthy things during their careers. Also, this reasoning might be an explanation as to why we experienced the steroid era. Athletes felt using these steroids would help protect their bodies from later deterioration (even though I'm sure most were interested in the short-term benefits).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
