thinking about method and grounds for critique

[Jule A (HLaSS)]

I completely agree with Cecilia Ford here. As a qualitative researcher, I am
often questioned about generalizations emerging from my work. All I can ever
say is, "There are no universal generalizations that emerge from my work".
However, this is not a weakness and nor is it unsystematic. The whole point
of qualitative work, such as in case studies and ethnographies, is to take a
closer, longer look - a look not possible in larger studies. Besides, who's
to say that larger, quantitative work is systematic? Bias and short-cuts are
everywhere. I would hope that the field agrees that there is always room and
always a necessity for all sorts of explorations. A little more helps a
little more in our understanding of gender and language patterns and
behaviours.
The 'difference/dominance/deficit' stuff has been floating around language
and gender discussions for decades now. Nevertheless, I printed off the B &
R article for my students too. Thanks for sending it!

- Allyson Jule

-----Original Message-----
From: International Gender and Language Association
To: GALA-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Sent: 8/30/2004 6:02 PM
Subject: thinking about method and grounds for critique

Hi

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:

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..."

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.

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.

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.

Any thoughts?

-Ceci