Monday, February 22, 2016

Issues of Audience in Composition Research- blog #1

I have to admit, the way this section, "Don't Make Me Do Math," began with mathematics scared me. Marissa and math go together like oil and water...that is to say, they really, really don't.
I found that Johanek made a compelling case for statistics within the field of composition, and cited reliable sources who also understood the misgivings of their audience, as people who have been widely turned off to mathematics. However, sometimes stats are a necessary evil and, as Johanek says, the administration wants to see numbers. That leaves some pretty big hurdles to overcome.

A fear of mine when dealing with statistics is that they are like another language, and are often introduced in such a way that I feel completely lost. There is nothing I hate more than feeling like the only person at the party who doesn't know anyone, and that's how I often feel when mathematics are introduced into the equation (oops, was that a pun?).

I think that Johanek brings to light a very real problem that often arises when statistics meet composition research. She cites instead after instance where researchers direct readers to outside suggested readings, instead of explaining the methods they used within the text. If you know you are speaking to an audience that may be less likely to naturally understand statistics, I believe that you should make the data understandable to that audience. For reasons like this, statistics are furher stigmatized .

In the concluding sentences of this section. Johanek says: "We have to be careful, especially in rhetoric and composition, if we believe that statistics lie...Let’s admit it: words tell more lies than numbers do. After all, we have another way of  pointing out liars: 'you’re just telling stories.'"
Maybe this is coming from my own preexisting cynicism, but I do not agree. I do not believe that statistics lie, but I do believe that people lie. In the perfect world we call a spade a spade and that's the end of it, but the problem is that in the same way that person saying the words might be a liar, the person presenting the numbers could be manipulating them. Just like I'd be skeptical of someone telling me a story, I'd be skeptical of someone explaining their stats to me, without showing me all of the data-- as is exemplified by the cases she shows in this section. ("Figures don't lie, liars figure")

Going on to the second section in this chapter, "Feminist Responses to the Traditional Research Paradigm," I appreciated that Johanek began this section by establishing her own stance, which appears to be fairly reasonable and moderate--- "I hope instead to present feminist inquiry as aiding our understanding of both women and men and, especially, the unwritten rules of the power structure in which we live" (69). I feel that feminism is a topic that can easily become radical in one way or the other, and I think she does a good job of establishing that there are rational and valid points made from both sides amidst the arguments-- there is a happy medium. As she says, "An even bigger mistake than always choosing one method would be to reject a research method only because of its male-dominated history or to prefer some methods because they appear to suit women better" (69).

There are several interesting points made in this section. Johanek cites biochemist Shepherd as saying that generally, in her experience, the emotional is generally associated with female, and the rational is associated with male. I agree that I have also seen these generalizations, and I agree that they are wrong. However, as Martha commented and I agreed, Shepherd boards the crazy train on the next page when she compares "science without feeling" to "Nazi scientists conducting experiements on Jews." Johanek acknowledges this as an extreme result, but I think that "extreme" is not, perhaps, an "extreme" enough word to express the wild outlandishness of the statement.

If I'm understanding the next part of the section correctly, I like the methods proposed by Sullivan for feminist inquiry. Instead of favoring what I assume would be considered the disinterested perspective of the male inquiry of the past, she purports a "qualitative and naturalistic" approach. I find this to be a practical way of utilizing those tendencies that are feminine, and highlighting them in the best possible way. If it does tend to be true that women are geared more toward empathy and feeling, then it is impractical that we would treat research in the same way that men do. However, instead of looking at these differences as male vs. female, perhaps it is more helpful to view them as different approaches that each have their own merits.

It is sad to me that despite the good ideas that are presented throughout this section, there is still a marked separation between female and male researchers. Rather than accepting the aforementioned validity of different methods and approaches and moving from that point to examine the facts, the methods are often under fire. Why apologize "feminine research principles" and "feminine methodology"? Instead, why don't we just focus on the facts, and let the principles and methodology stand on their own?

Shifting my focus to the final section, "Preference for Narrative-As-Genre," the question after the colon puts forward an interesting question, "Are we still the stepchild of literature?"
Well, are we? I think that stories are important. I think they cater to a side that everyone has, the desire to learn and be engaged, and I think often, associated writing with stories seems natural. However, even in saying that, I can see where this could be disputed. Linking this to the first section regarding statistics, perhaps it is this reliance on stories that makes many so wary of statistics and analysis in writing, because it is something we're not used to being associated. I loved the line on page 79, "Storytelling, more than statistics, allows our emotions to emerge." This is true, and I think it's something to be celebrated! However, having read the first section, I think that there is the ability to teach using both approaches, and perhaps incorporating statistics and analysis makes writing classes more accessibly to people who are more likely to favor the rational world of numbers. I would not appreciate this, personally, but I know that many would.

This chapter has been interesting to me because I think that Johanek set it up in a very thought provoking way. In the beginning, I was wary of the incorporation of statistics, however, at the end, I was defending their merit. In the same way I found myself finding a happy medium in the middle section regarding feminine vs. masculine research methods. I think it is sad that differing values dictate what is considered worthy, especially when there is merit in different methods. Square blocks do not fit in circle holes, and unfortunately, there are many who try to force that.

There are many different ways of approaching analysis and each has it's own merits and weaknesses. I'm interested in hearing what everyone else thought in class tonight, because there are a lot of different points to discuss.

No comments:

Post a Comment