Com 473--Baldwin—Communication—Illinois State University

Updated 11/11/09

Announcements—Fall 2009

Welcome to our Announcements Page! Here’s how it works: If I have any special announcements, answers to questions on readings, assignments, etc., rather than sending you lots of e-mails, I will post the answers here.

The announcement page works “backwards,” with oldest announcements being at the bottom. This keeps newest announcements closest to top for ease of access. Watch dates! Usually, if you miss a class period, you can just look at the on-line syllabus to find questions or what we did that day.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Great Job, Brian!

It was fun having dinner as a class, even if it didn’t yield itself to a good discussion of CMC & qualitative inquiry.

So on Monday, let’s spend the first half of the evening discussing CMC—bring your laptops again.

Second half, we will talk about write-up issues. J

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Of course Dr. Gill was impressed with you! I know I am!

I’ve posted notes for the last two weeks on the syllabus.

Back to Media Analysis!

• Semiotic analysis
• Postmodern analysis

Studying the Internet

UNIT 4: Writing & Practice

From "text" to "text"

QL research in the workplace

Critique & Convergence

But remember, next Monday, we will not meet, but will go to see Brian’s documentary at the Normal Theatre! J

BTW, congratulations to Jenifer! The College of Arts & Sciences nominated her for the University Graduate Teaching Award! You go, Jenifer!

I’ve completed observation evaluations and will put them in your boxes, if you have boxes in the main office, on my way out at 3. Now on to grade abstracts! J

Monday, November 02, 2009

Tonight! As always, I’m a bit behind actually posting notes for the class. Remember (as per an e-mail I sent you last week), tonight we will *not* rely on the Ten Have Conversational Analysis “how to” readings. Please read transcript notation, just to get a feel for it, and the Clayman & Gill chapter I sent to you. The notes do not reflect this. Mostly, try to get a good feel for:

· What type of data CA uses (and why)? What would it not use?

· What sort of theoretical framework does CA take to the table (hint: Trick Question)?

· What are some key terms that you might find in CA?

· What does the data look like before you analyze it?

· Try to get a feel for the “steps” of analysis

· What are some strengths and limitations of this method? When might you want to use it?

After break: Discourse Analysis: See notes on Blum-Kulka in the link: http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473\CADA.htm

Tuesday, October 13, 2009: TONIGHT!

Next Week:

· Focus Groups: Read Morgan book (your specific assignments are on the Website): http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473\FocusGroups.htm

· Let’s look at one article together that uses focus groups…[I’ll e-mail you one]

· Abstracts! Time to turn our attention to abstracts—We will hear abstracts on any articles dealing with open-ended questionnaires, interviews, or focus groups. If you are doing one on FGS, you can also present and turn in abstract following week, or present following week at beginning of class.

Due: By Friday: Either Observation Assignment or Thematic Assignment, if you are doing either of these!

Term Projects: We will begin on Monday with an update. You should be well along on your review of lit. [I may consider reducing EITHER number of abstracts OR number of mini-projects to give you more time on final project…but I will do only one or the other, for the whole class…I’m more likely to have you do only two mini-projects and 2 abstracts, so you can be sure to be reading examples of research. We’ll negotiate on Monday night…

An interesting call for papers:

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT AND

ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE

April 6-8th, 2010.

Anderson School of Management

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico Reimagining Method Keynote Speakers George Marcus University of California, Irvine Linda Putnam University of California, Santa Barbara

"There are no new ideas and none on the horizon, as well as no indication that ...[the] traditional stock of knowledge shows any sign of revitalization..." (Marcus, 2008: 3) Writing Culture and Anthropology as Cultural Critique (1986) drew attention to the 'crisis of representation' occurring in social and cultural anthropology by questioning the ways in which ethnographies are written and read, disrupting the fixities through which ethnographers view fieldwork, and reflexively critiquing their relationship with 'others'.

Yet twenty years on, George Marcus observed that little has changed. Despite radical departures in some of the social sciences - variously termed textual, linguistic, reflexive, narrative, symbolic and aesthetic turns - functionalist methodologies still dominate, especially in management and organization studies. Whilst there has been some experimentation with novel methods, too often these have been incorporated into a heuristic kitbag and used to enhance rather than destabilize classical ways of theorizing and writing. Following Marcus, we think that the question of method can provide a pivot for reorienting and refocusing - reimagining - the disciplines that comprise the organization and management field.

Monday, October 12, 2009: TONIGHT!

Tonight! Don’t forget—midterms due!

If you are doing an abstract on interviews, focus groups, or even open-ended questionnaires, do not feel like you have to turn it in tonight (2 assignments one week!? Too much, even for Baldwin).

I have (finally) connected the link on the syllabus, but here is a shortcut:

http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473/Interviews.htm

I might be underestimating you, but I suspect, with mid-term and illnesses and all that, that many of you may be brain dead. So, as usual, we will try to spend most of the evening in exercise of some sort. We will probably create interview schedule, might conduct an interview, and then will analyze an interview. What fun! J

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Last night: We worked “intuitively” through Lindlof & Taylor Ch. 7, on data analysis, paying specific attention to issues such as coding, unitizing, and categorizing, along with wrapping up some notes about grounded theory. We did an exercise that shows how one can use “content analysis” to derive categories.

Do you want to know more? Rather than flood your e-mail box with attachments, I have created a link to a single document that shows a category set, categorizing rules, coding, and write-up, from our definitions of culture book. You don’t have to read the whole thing, but at a minimum, please look at the general outline of data analysis used and “notes” at the beginning of the site: http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473/Data_Analysis_Sample.htm

Next Week: We still have more to say on data analysis, but will do so in our regular classroom. We’re about ½ class period behind, so we will likely spend our first ½ class period on data analysis (no new readings).

Second half, we will begin looking at methods. Please read Lindlof & Taylor, Ch. 5 on observational analysis. Then, we will want to give more insight, so we will look at two readings in the packet. There are two additional readings, but we will “split” them, seminar style.

§ Philipsen, G. (1989). An ethnographic approach to communication studies. In B. Dervin et al. (Eds.), Rethinking communication (pp.258-268). Newbury Park: Sage: 1^st “half” of class role: Jen, Maggie, Rosie, Jamie, David

§ Conquergood, D. (1991). Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics. Communication Monographs, 58, 179-194. Mel, Curtis, Brian, Ashley, Kathryn

Basically, be ready to tell us the main points of the article.

Due Dates:

I’m a pretty flexible guy (must be the exercises I’ve been doing)—so I am fine keeping the midterm due date as it is stated on the formal syllabus posted at the beginning of the semester. That is, even though we’re one week ahead of schedule, we can keep midterm due Monday, Oct. 12. What that means is that it should not mess with GT evaluation due date (please turn those in Monday if you can!), but if you are doing the observation exercise, we will have to negotiate when you turn that exercise in.

Next week: I

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Last week: We had a short meeting, just enough to do some exercises pertaining to grounded theory and talk through some of the main ideas in Strauss & Corbin (1998) Chs. 8-10.

Next week: I will do more with GT, giving you some examples and discussing evaluation (see below). Before break, we will cover Lindlof & Taylor, Ch. 7. I will not have as much to say about the Baxter reading (is it even in the packet?: https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/fileview.php?filename=jbcom_14163.pdf), except to explain the various types of analysis, with special attention to Spradley’s semantic categories. Class notes: http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473\Data_Analysis.htm

After break, we need to do a data analysis exercise that actually looks at how to transform data into categories and then does intercoder reliability (I will bring handouts—you bring calculators!). NOTE: This is work that we have traditionally done in a coffee shop, so this leaves the question: Do we want to hold the entire class over at the Coffee House? PLEASE send me a reply.

Assignments: If you are going to do the evaluation of a grounded theory, there are two you might work from ATTACHED (Family, Sex Talk in Workplace)—choose one. In class, we will look at Browning’s GT of workplace communication together with the standards: https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMBRO.PDF

[Note: If we meet at the coffee house, you will need to skim this article, especially looking at diagrams and the findings, to see how Browning wrote it up!]

Then you can evaluate the theory in the article I send you via e-mail attachment. You can go ahead and begin to get thoughts together even before Monday. Again, here are the instructions: http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473/Grounded_Theory_Exercise.htm [note: This site contains an example of the article we will look at in class.]

Very Important!

As I am looking at the schedule, I can see that our short assignments begin to pile up after mid-term. In fact, you might be doing a short paper a week. Mostly, if you are doing the GT Eval as one of your mini-assignments, it will come close to the Midterm! So let’s do the following:

1) Monday night (9/28): R

a. Read L&T on data analysis (Ch. 7). I will cover what we need to know from Baxter reading.

b. Go ahead and look at Browning and GT evaluation website, then, if you are doing mini-assignment, make some good headway on your GT evaluation (but not due ‘til after we discuss it in class). I will attach two possible articles for you to choose from to an e-mail with this same message. I kind of like the sex-talk in orgs article, but you can choose the other if you like. I will also attach a handout of GT evaluation criteria I prepared in one of my grad classes (we will also consider what Katherine Miller has to say, but she is just summarizing these same authors). You do not need to print this off—I already have copies made.

c. We will spend ½ of class on in-class assignment on data coding. But experience tells me that this will go more smoothly if you have looked at the data before you get there. So, print off “negative comments” and go ahead and look for concepts that might be categories—specifically, consider the domain, “things an instructor can do to be effective.”

2) Monday night (10/5): We will move on to actual data collection (Ethnography). Midterm will be due, as per syllabus. BUT you can turn in GT evaluation up to Friday (10/9)!

What this means, essentially, is that you have only one chapter and some data to look at for Monday night. This should free up some time to work on GT Evaluation (if that is one of your mini-assignments) and midterm!

Also, please note that I have updated the syllabus with links to all mini-assignments, so that you can strategize your semester!

Hands-On Exercises: Some of the class work will include in- and out-of class short methodological assignments to practice each of the methods.

Ø Grounded-theory evaluation (in pairs)

Ø On-site observation with typed observation notes

Ø Content analysis of open-ended questionnaire, interview or other data

Ø Conversation or discourse analysis (detailed transcription and interpretation)

Ø Rhetorical/critical analysis (deconstruction of media text)

Ø Personal/Research-related journal

Wednesday, 09-09-09

Next week: We will wrap up our discussion of practical aspects of research that we began at The Pub II by reviewing some of the main ideas from Lincoln & Guba, Ch. 8. We will take a brief interlude and to an exercise in which we talk about open-ended questionnaires—reasons, construction, and analysis. You have enough to read, so I will not ask you to glance at methods sections and results of these two articles…

Imahori & Cupach (management of face in Japan & U.S.): https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMIMA.PDF

Collier (persuasion in Colombia & Colorado): https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMCOL.PDF

(aren’t you glad I didn’t ask you to look at those). We will look at them in class.

Readings for the Evening:

· Doing things naturally (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, Ch. 8): Focus on meanings of words and figure 8.1

· Ethics: Two shorter readings—get a feel for the type of ethical questions that might come out in qualitative inquiry. How might ethics be similar to or different from standard ethical questions you learn about in standard methods courses?

· Worth: Another L&G chapter. I think 8 is easier and more fun to read. 11 gets dense at places. I do think that 11 gives a more thorough understanding of the types of biases that can occur in standard quantitative research than I ever learned in any stats class! However, Table 11.2, p. 328 gives a very nice summary. You might start there. The key questions are:

o What are L&G’s 4 parallel criteria for evaluating qualitative research to standard quantitative criteria (how are they similar or different) AND

o What are some specific measures you might incorporate to better achieve each one (some strategies may address more than one criterion).

BTW, if you have not turned in your IRB paperwork, please remember, it’s due by this Friday if you want to stay on track!

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Next week: No class (Labor Day)—By Friday of next week, please have all IRB materials to me (even it means rushing the project just a bit), since some projects require longer reviews. Here’s what you need:

If you are using human subjects:

· Relevant IRB forms, using current version on the Web: [Main link: http://www.rsp.ilstu.edu/forms/human_irb.shtml]

o Main IRB form: http://www.rsp.ilstu.edu/downloads/IRB_forms/IRB%20Dept%20Rep%20Form.doc

(includes Appendix A, which everyone must complete). Notes:

1. We now need to make a rationale as to why the study will help the participants.

2. Your study will be confidential and not anonymous, as you will know who the participants are. If you are doing focus groups, you cannot guarantee anonymity. See sample FG protocol for sample language to include.

3. Keep it simple but complete. Remember, nonspecialists will be reading your proposal. So don’t throw around terms that you learn in our readings without defining them.

4. Best to stick to the actual practices—no background theory. The IRB is most interested in the procedures and whether they are ethical for the participants.

5. As this is a class project, Baldwin is principal investigator. You are co-principal. Don’t use “I” or “me” in the study. For example, if you are going to store tapes or electronic files of interviews in your home, say “co-PI’s home.”

6. You cannot securely store files or tapes in any school office or computer, especially if there are other students in it. You must store them at your home, or in Baldwin’s (principal investigator’s) office.

o Appendix K (if audio or videorecording, say with interviews or focus groups): http://www.rsp.ilstu.edu/downloads/IRB_forms/AppendixK.doc

o Other forms if you are using deception, any special population, etc. (my recommendation: Avoid these if possible, as they may delay IRB approval for several weeks)

· Any recruiting materials (signs you might post, e-mails you might send to possible participants OR to those who might pass out your survey)

· Questionnaire or interview protocol (questions you will ask. Note that often these are “semi-structured,” so see language highlighted on sample interview questions I send you.

· Informed consent and debriefing sheet.

o If you use both, include both (some like to use a debriefing sheet after the interview, questionnaire, or focus group to let Ps know what they were looking for, and including appropriate contact names.

o Some people are very up front about what they want to talk about and do with the findings. They state this in the signed release and just give a blank copy to participants instead of a debriefing sheet.

o Make sure the elements of the release match Appendix A exactly.

o Be sure to include my name, key contact info from IRB, and, if it is a sensitive topic, you might include an appropriate counseling agency (e.g., return cultural adjustment, might include student counseling office number). I often put these in a box like this, and I’ll include contact name/info of IRB here (since it seems to change frequently). Use this contact info—not what is on any of the IRB forms.

o You can include your e-mail, but don’t include your personal phone number on the release.

John R. Baldwin Research Ethics and Compliance Fulano de Tal Student Counseling

School of Communication University Research Office Graduate Student Office, ISU

Illinois State University Illinois State University School of Communication 438-3655

Normal IL 61790—4480 Normal IL 61790—3330 Illinois State University

(309) 438-7876 (309) 438- 2520 Normal IL 61790

jrbaldw@ilstu.edu fdetal@ilstu.edu

I will send you by e-mail some attachments, including sample interview protocols, releases, and IRB forms (most will use older forms, but see Kristi Z’s, which is pretty recent). Please send forms to me via e-mail, so I can review them.

Note: These forms are not graded in any way—it’s just paperwork, and if you do other studies, you will need to learn the language and steps at your new institution. For that reason, feel free to borrow freely from the attachments that I send to you. Just read carefully to make sure it matches your study.

Media projects: If you are doing a media project, please send me a 1-page summary of your project: Main rationale (don’t need sources), what you plan to do, possible theoretical lenses (if you have any yet), and the text(s) you plan to study.

Journal Ideas: For those doing a journal, here are some ideas

· What philosophical orientations or backgrounds from our readings seem to be the most appropriate to your study (based on L&T Ch 2, Potter, Ch. 3)?

· Walk your paper through all or part of the discussion from L&T 3-4 (reasons for your research project? Identity correspondence? Suitability, feasibility? Access (including gatekeepers, sponsors)? Field, site/setting/scene? Types of documents or resources you may/will need

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

New Lynx!

· Updated syllabus (changes highlighted: added abstracts, updated due dates): http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473Syllabus.htm

· Announcement Page (to replace these e-mails—for the most part!): http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473/Announcements.htm

· Power point: Paradigms

Nice discussion last night of both broader assumptions (materialism, etc.) and of some of the specific influences on many qualitative researchers. One thing I did not do, and will probably forget to do next week, is to distinguish between rationalism and empiricism. Empiricism comes from and replaces rationalism (actually, in the Western world, it was first a theological world view (metaphysical), then a rationalistic world view (that is—that there is a single truth, and we derive it through reason), then an empirical world view (that is, truth is discernible only through observation), then the modern challenges to empiricism. (whew!!

Next week, we will jump right into the “how to” of conducting a study. Lindlof & Taylor chapters 3 and 4 lay out a variety of the decisions that one must make. Here are the notes! Practical issues

It is often helpful to do the “staged exercise” at the bottom of the webpage at an out-of-class location, such as a coffeehouse or a relatively mild bar, where we can observe unobtrusively and “imagine” a study (we are not conducting a study at this point—we are thinking of ideas of a study that might occur in some context, and then walking the study through the steps in Lindlof & Taylor 3 & 4). ANY SUGGESTIONS!? We have met at the Coffeehouse before (though M night might be slow), as well as at pizza joints and so on. The key is it must be big enough for us to spread out and do the worksheet with a partner.

Might as well print off the notes with the staged exercise. Watch for e-mail announcing location of meeting. Make suggestions. We’ll actually try to wrap up all of the coverage in a couple of hours and then end class early, for those who just want to hang out afterwards.

Some Old E-Mail Announcements…

8/24/09:

Our theme song...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7KrlDZ5Hkw

Here is an announcement that I will post to our new "announcements" webpage tomorrow, when posting to the website is easier (today I'm working from home).

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Last class period, we introduced some of the key terms related to qualitative research, talked about some of the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and introduced the general notions of paradigms, which should prepare you for next week’s readings. Oh yeah—and we built sculptures, talked about ourselves, and made a new friend.

Next Week we will look in more detail at philosophical influences that have influenced various strains of qualitative research. Our primary reading will be Lindlof Ch. 2. There are several readings on-line. So let’s focus primarily on Lindlof and on the Potter reading. You can skim the Burrell and Morgan chapters, and we will use their language. I will present the rest of the power point that introduces their concepts and post this to the Website later this week.

Rather than me do all the talking, let’s divide up Lindlof Ch. 2 (our main reading), with two students for each of the following sections. I will assign these based on a “number” draw from the alphabetical list of students, since I don’t know everyone’s interest area. If I *do* know your interest area, then I will do myself to assign you to a different area of research—that’s just the way I am. J

Background Influence	Students
Verstehen	Baldwin
Ethnomethodology	Baldwin also (this one’s a bit hard to follow)
Symbolic Interactionism	Jennifer, Melissa
Ethnography of Communication	Maggie, Curtis
Critical theory (modernist v. postmodernist)	Rosie. Brian (at least I didn’t give you the Foss sisters again…)
Feminism	Jamie, Ashley
Cultural Studies	David, Katie

If you look at B&M (not B.M., though that is what some people think of when they read this stuff), mostly look to main terms: ontology, epistemology, axiology, and understand the main distinctions as explained in Monday’s presentation (Figure 1.1 at https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMBU3.PDF). The rest of chapter 1 only describes the various terms in the table. Chapter 3 (https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMBU2.PDF) is mostly valuable for our purposes for what it conceptualizes in Figure 3.3—that is, thinking in terms of dimensions, with various approaches laying somewhere on these continua. We will not really focus on the “four paradigms” that B&M present, though the language is very useful for you (esp if going on to doctoral school).

The Potter reading (I will, of course, pronounce the author’s name in the voice of Severus Snape), really gives a clearer understanding of terms that Lindlof glosses over, like rationalism, empiricism, and materialism (that is, realism), and idealism. This reading will inform our summary thoughts about the “ologies” of qualitative research, so please read it!

Website: I have posted our syllabus on-line: http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473Syllabus.htm. But I have not yet been able to make all of the links “hot.” There is a link to readings http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/473/473Readings.htm, with hot-links, though the link is from last year (most of the readings are the same—my flash died, with this year’s readings, and I’m still trying to get it open to get the revised list of readings).

Readings: I did check with Lee at Rapid Print and she says that, short of one reading (that I will provide or summarize), the packet is ready. Those who have opted to get the reading in a packet will need $16.50 on their Redbird card or a check—go to Rapidprint in the basement of Old Union.

8/12/09

Dear COM 473 students:

A hearty welcome to Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods!

I'm attaching the syllabus for your reading pleasure, or to line the cage of your pet canary, whichever you choose.

Of course, the syllabus is electronic, so I guess you would have to have an eletronic bird, with a cyber-cage. But that's beside the point.

Please note a couple of things on the syllabus:

1) The time and location of the course have changed in order for us to attract more students and thus meet the minimum number required for a course (we made it--yea!). With the kind cooperation of my family and the SOC, we will meet Monday nights, 7-9:50

2) You will see at the bottom of the syllabus a set of readings that accompany our textbook. On our first night, we will discuss if you want to purchase these as a packet, or simply access them through the Internet (but you should bring a copy to class either way!). Typically, packet will cost something like $15 to $20. The syllabus will be on my website, so there will be hotlinks to the readings, as well.

3) Normally, I carve out the entire last week for work (a "dead" week, with no class and readings). B/c we lose two weeks--one to labor day and another to the need for some of our students to be at the presentation of graduate faculty on Sept. 21, we lose this work week, though we will immediately investigate options to recapture it. (Maybe we can minimize our involvement in what I call "faculty on parade" and meet 2nd half of the evening, or something).

4) Also, b/c we meet once a week, we need to jump right into things on the first night. We will have a break each night of a few minutes. On Monday, after introductions and some random philsophizing on the part of your verbose instructor, we will take a break, then come back to discuss Lindlof & Taylor, Ch. 1.

For your thought--what do *you* think about qualitative research? What do you hear about it? What are your impressions or expectations? Maybe jot these down briefly, so that you have your initial impressions (what we would often do prior to any readings) *before* you read the first chapter.

See you Monday night! Feel free to bring munchies--the night is long!

Captain’s Log: Supplemental….

What’s in the Comm Journals? We have made the argument in class that while, at one time, people had to make a defense of why even to use qualitative research methods, they have become such a standard practice in the field that (except in some areas and/or with some professors!) your time is better spent in discussing why your method, among other qualitative methods, is the most appropriate.

As evidence of this, I was going through a stack of journals to put away and thought I would keep out any that had a qualitative journal article in them. . . and that turned out to be just about every one! Here are some offerings from the last few months’ journals (feel free to contact me if you would be interested in summarizing one or abstracting one for an appropriate class!)

Qualitative Research Reports in Communication. I was surprised! Everything in here was qualitative! The issue I found was older (2003). I’ll bring it to class. Topics:

· Rhetorical invention and the transformation of [song] “We Shall Overcome” (Murphy): rhetorical analysis

· Listening to the voices in an online class. (Campbell): observation, interviews, discourse analysis of threaded discussions

· Using focus groups to formulate effective language for health communication messages (Lederman & Stewart): I’ll let you guess the method…

· The multiplicity of response options in social support situations (Pudlinksi): Thematic analysis of call transcripts

· Communicating romance in a retirement community (Alemán): 3-year ethnography (crammed into a 5 page article—what a shame!)

· Males’ experience and expression of love (Olson): In-depth interviews

· Women’s narratives about the role of pregnancy (Arnold): Interviews (e-mail, phone, in person) with bulletin-board participants

· Preschool and elementary teachers’ perceptions of communication apprehension (Krider & Schneider): Interviews

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication (okay—admittedly, all about culture. What d’ya expect?]

· Halualani, R. (2008). Where exactly is the Pacific?: Global migrations, diasporic movements, and intercultural communication. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 3-22. [in-depth interviews]

· Lee, P.-W. (2008). Stages and transitions of relational identity in intercultural friendship: Implications for identity management theory. . Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 51-69. [in-depth interviews; BTW, IMT is a theory developed by Cupach and Imahori]

· Kinefuchi, E., & Orbe, M. P. (2008). Situating oneself in a racialized world: Understanding student reactions to Crash through standpoint theory and context-positionality frames. . Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 70-90. [thematic analysis of student class papers; Cultural Studies/reception study]

· Johnson, J. R., Rich, M., & Cargile, A. C. (2008). “Why are you shoving this stuff down our throats?”: Preparing intercultural educators to challenge performances of White racism. . Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 113-135. [thematic analysis of student assignments, in “Whiteness” framework]

· Demont-Heinrich, C. (2008). Beyond culture and (national) identity? Language, globalization and the disocuse of universal progress in American newspaper coverage of English. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 136-157. [Rhetorical analysis of newspaper coverage]

· Witteborn, S. (2008). Identity, mobilization practices of refugees: The case of Iraqis in the United States and the War in Iraq. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 202-220. [Narrative analysis, using some discourse analysis]

· Zhou, Y., & Todman, J. (2008). Chinese postgraduate students in the UK: A two-way reciprocal adaptation. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 221-243. [focus groups of students, interviews of faculty, questionnaires]

· Cheng, H.-I. (2008). Space making: Chinese transnationalism on the U.S.-Mexican borderlands. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 244-263. [narrative analysis of ethnographically? Collected narratives]

Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies: Of course, everything in here is qualitative! Here are “primary research” articles from Dec. 2007 issue:

o From Prime-time to Daytime: The domestication of Ellen DeGeneres (Skerski)

o Theraepeutic and Material <Victim>hood: Ideology and the struggle for meaning in the Illinois Death Penalty Controversy (McCann, from his ISU School of Communication Thesis!)

o (Other essays in this issue happen to be more about research directions and such)

Critical Studies in Media Communication: Also largely (but not exclusively) qualitative and mostly (crit) rhetorical analyses of texts (audience or reception studies will be noted)

o Father trouble: Staging sovereignty in Spielberg’s War of the Worlds (Gunn)

o Managing Mr. Monk: Control and the politics of madness (Johnson)

o “Should I go and pull her burqa off?”: Feminist compulsions, insider consent, and a Return to Kandahar (Ansari)

o Sumptuous texts: Consuming “Otherness” in the food film genre (Shugart)

o Pornographies of violence? Internet spectatorship on body horror (Tait): This is more of a media rhet analysis, looking both at articles attacking and defending website horror (e.g., graphic violence on the body depicted on the web), but also including listserv posts of users of such websites.

o The da Vinci Code and the regressive gender politics of celebrating women (Maddux)

o Framing Brokeback Mountain: How the popular press corralled the “gay cowboy movie” (Cooper & Pease)

o Comedy in unfunny times: News parody and Carnival after 9/11 (Achter)

o Religion and secutarism as embedded imaginaries: A study of Indian television (Asthana)

o Fashioning race for the free market on America’s Next Top Model (Hasinoff)

Others

· Meisenbach, R. J., Remke, R. V., Buzzanell, P. M., & Liu, M. (2008). “They allowed”: Pentadic mapping of women’s maternity leave discourse as organizational rhetoric. Communication Monographs, 75, 1-24. [Burkean rhetorical analysis]

· Becker, J. A. H., Ellevold, B. (ISU School of Comm Alum!), & Stamp, G. H. (2008). The creation of defensiveness in social interaction II: A model of defensive communication among romantic couples. Communication Monographs, 75, 86-110. [In-depth interviews and narratives provided by participants]

· Chuang, L. M., & Hart, J. P. (2008). Suburban American punks and the mystical rhetoric of Green Day’s “Jesus of Suburbia.” Communication Studies, 59, 183-201. [media crit rhet]

· Tamborini, T. (et al.) (2008). Talking smack: Verbal aggression in professional wrestling. Communication Studies, 59, 242-258. [Very quantitative “content analysis” of talk and images on TV

· Butterworth, M. L. (2008). “Katie was not only a girl, she was terrible” Katie Hnida, body rhetoric, and football at the University of Colorado. Communication Studies, 59, 259-273. [rhet analysis of news coverage]

· Oikawa, S., & Yoshida, T. (2007). An identity based on being different: A focus on biethnic individuals in Japan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 633-653. [Focus groups]