<BODY><P>Hi</P>
<P>I really really like the critique presented in the Chronicle article by Barnett and Rivers, and I am looking forward to reading Barnett's book. However, in the spirit of being cautious and questioning in how we approach debunking finidings, let me throw out an issue that is raised for me by the article:</P>
<P>To debunk discourse studies that have suggested differences in male and female speech styles, the authors cite findings from studies based on questionnaires and interviews. (see paragraph begiinning, " An important article..." and ending with "417 women and 321 men." Later, discussion Pipher's book, they say it was "[D]rawing on case studies rather than systematic research..."</P>
<P>So my issue is this: While I have always questioned studies that claim that there is some mean difference between men and women's talk (means being meaningless if there is significant deviation from the mean in each group studied), I am concerned about critiques that fail to acknowledge the centrality of close analysis to understanding language use. Numbers, and especially numbers based on questionnaires, are problematic. First, they are only as good as are the analyses of the single units they count - that is, if the numbers are based on quick categorizations without fine-tuned functional, social analysis of each case, then you have big and significant numbers that don't represent much at all. Second, there are aspects of language use, discourse and social interaction, that can't be counted. </P>
<P>I don't want to see lg. and gender researchers discounting "case studies" as "unsystematic." Close analysis will always be necessary, both to feed into quantitative studies and also as a central component of understanding language use in itself. Case studies and close analyses can be sloppy or careful, and that's another question, but I don't like setting up a taken-for-granted contrast between "case studies" and "systematic research" as these authors seem to do.</P>
<P>BTW - I am not defending generalizations about differences between gender styles. What I am intending to do is to flag an issue of method and grounds for critique.</P>
<P>Any thoughts?</P>
<P>-Ceci</P></BODY>