“Without rigor, research is worthless, becomes fiction, and loses its utility,” Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, and Spiers emphasize (2002, p. 14). Qualitative research needs to struggle to reach the standard of ‘rigor’ compared with quantitative research in which the accurate hard numbers and statistic values are provided. Generally speaking,
qualitative research in social science pertains to uncovering people’s thoughts, and their feelings or what and how they interpret their thoughts and feelings. Information of this kind can be subjective because it entails personal feelings and impressions instead of numbers (Bellenger, Bernhardt, & Goldstucker, 1976). Thus, some researchers promote the need of requiring new criteria for the determination of reliability and validity to assure rigor in qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Leininger, 1994). CA is a research methodology different from other qualitative research in nature. The
procedures of CA according to the emic perspective are unlike to mainstream research methodologies employing an etic paradigm in many ways (Seedhouse, 2005b).The following section attempts to position CA by the criteria of reliability, validity and generalisability. However, very few researchers have strived to involve the issues in relation to CA methodology to date. Seedhouse (2005a, 2005b) is an exception (Brandt, 2011) and his arguments are mostly revealed.
3.3.1 Reliability
The criteria concluded by Seedhouse (2005b) from the standpoints of Peräkylä (1997), ten Have (1999) and Bryman (2001) involve the selection and quality of recordings, the adequacy of transcripts, repeatability as well as the replicability of findings and the presentation of CA studies. First, no recordings are intact enough by utilizing audio or video devices but modern technologies provide much better techniques than those in 1970s when Sacks and other researchers could merely use tape recorders. Audio and video files as well as detailed transcripts of the data are now available on the Internet. The adequacy of reliable transcripts is highly required for CA research. Not merely the verbatim but also the prosody, volume, and other nonverbal features such as facial expression and gestures are emphasized. The reason is to capture as much as possible for authenticity. In the present study, the written discourse data were directly retrieved from the communicative platform, Facebook. The chat scripts of the conversation are authentic without any effort of transcription.
80
The most salient difference from many other research methodologies to CA approach is the display of the primary data in their studies. CA researchers can also provide the links for their online audio and video files in their publications or conferences for scrutiny. For example, in the present study, the major selections of the written discourse data themselves in the communication platform, Facebook, can be linked for further probe due to the advantages of modern technologies and the Internet. Therefore, readers and other researchers are able to analyse the sources and exam the analytic process as well as the findings by themselves (Seedhouse, 2005b). Second, due to the public display of the primary sources and the sufficient information of the analytic procedures, it is possible to repeat and replicate the analytic findings for other researchers who are interested.
Last but not least, peer debriefing is another method to access the reliability. Long and Johnson (2000) reveal methods for conducting peer debriefing:
Peer debriefing may be pursued in numerous forms. One of these is to discuss the emerging findings at intervals with knowledgeable colleagues, a second to present and defend method and findings at national research conferences, and a third to present the findings and implications to interested groups. (p. 34)
Thus, additional perspectives, explanations and critical comments at different process of data collection, analysis and publication can be provided. In the procedure of CA
approach, after the collection of data, the major selections of primary data are usually presented at some seminars for discussion. Before publications, the studies also undergo the peer-reviewed process by editors and reviewers. For example, the selected primary sources of the present study were under discussions and comments by the members of Micro-Analysis Research Group (MARG) which is a cross-institutional,
interdisciplinary research group, founded in 2007, and organised by the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences at Newcastle University. Seedhouse (2005b) indicates that the standard practice for CA practitioners requires the
presentation and analysis of their data in data workshops and the comments of other practitioners before they submit their studies for publication. It is the most essential and important method which users of other methodologies cannot access to challenge the original data.
81
3.3.2 Validity: internal, external, ecological and construct validity
“By validity, I mean…the extent to which an account accurately represents the social phenomena to which it refers” (Hammersley, 1990, p. 57). The accuracy of findings measured by researchers is the key to validity. Bryman (2001) first proposes four criteria of validity pertaining to qualitative research: internal, external, ecological and construct validity. Seedhouse (2005a, 2005b) supports and explicates those four criteria as well as other considerations from the perspective of CA.
The internal validity can be achieved and tested easily in term of CA’s emic perspective. Analysing the detailed data (transcriptions), CA researchers obtain the participants’ perspective rather than their own intuition because “the participants document their social actions to each other in the details of the interaction by normative reference to the interactional organization” (Seedhouse, 2005b, p. 255). The talk-in- interaction itself provides evidence of justification for the development of an emic perspective. Therefore, there is no need for CA analysts to claim more than what is revealed in the interactional details. This type of validity can also be justified by other researchers while examining the data.
When it comes to external validity, Seedhouse (2005a, 2005b) argues that it is related to generalizability, which indicates the extent to which whether the results of a specific research setting can be generalized in different research context or to other subjects. In fact, generalizability is often tested by analysing the social phenomena in quantitative research, which is “a standard aim in quantitative research and is normally achieved by statistical sampling procedures” (Silverman, 2011, p. 385). Although Schegloff (1987) criticizes that the quantification carried out in CA research overlooks the individual differences resulting in weakening the whole CA study, Seedhouse (2005b) argues that it is possible to provide some levels of generalization to describe the interactional organization of the setting because interaction is also regarded as reasonably organized according to social goals. Therefore, in CA’s viewpoint, the purpose of generalization is “to see whether and how some a priori rule or principles is oriented to by participants in various instances of natural interaction” (ten Have, 2007, p. 150). “CA studies in effect work on the particular and the general simultaneously; by analysing individual
instances, the machinery that produced these individual instances is revealed” (Seedhouse, 2005b, p. 256). For example, Seedhouse (2004) states that the
ethnomethodological objective of reflexivity between pedagogical goals and interaction can be generalized because it is a universal feature taking place in L2 classroom
82
interaction. In the present study, the features of online interaction between English L1 and L2 speakers can be generalized in other online context as well.
In relation to ecological validity, CA research seems to be strong in particular comparing with other methodologies. Ecological validity concerns about the
applications of research to human being’s everyday life, which is strong in naturally occurring data and weak in data from experimental and/or laboratory-based settings; however, Brandt (2011) supposes that it is still worthwhile to analyse data from
artificial settings because they also produce social organizations and interesting results. The online written discourse data of the present study are sound and provide authentic one-to-one talk-in-interaction in a social website, Facebook. Therefore, the research findings can be applied to other online everyday talk between L1 and L2 speakers in people’s real life.
Construct validity refers to dealing with the question of “whether a measure that is devised of a concept really does reflect the concept that it is supposed to be denoting” (Bryman, 2001, p. 30) from quantitative paradigm. However, in CA with an emic paradigm, Seedhouse (2005b) poses the question: “Whose construct is it” (p.257). He also explains that from an etic perspective of descriptivist linguists, they try to form constructs and categories by matching linguistic features of interaction. However, for CA practitioners with an emic perspective, “constructs to which participants orient during interaction” (ibid. p. 257) are what they strive to achieve. That is, the “constructs” of the CA researchers and participants are concordant. This is testable again by other researchers for scrutiny of the evidence of the findings.
3.3.3 Triangulation and ethnographic data sources
Triangulation is defined as “a validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study” (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p. 126). Moreover, Mathison (1988) suggests the need of applying multiple approaches and data sources to data analysis of a study so as to reduce bias and build sound and valid arguments. This implies that triangulation is a critical necessity for researchers who employ naturalistic and qualitative methods. However, fearing that the triangulation method becomes a
defective one, Silverman (2005) warns researchers, novice in particular, not to attribute to the participants’ accounts of the context of their actions as a privileged status. There is no doubt that CA methodology is free from the worry because “given the emic goal of CA, there is no substitute for detailed and in-depth analysis of individual sequences”
83
(Seedhouse, 2005b, p. 260). Therefore, the typical methods of ethnography such as interviews and observations for triangulation are not commonly employed in CA studies. Notwithstanding Silverman’s concern of triangulation, Seedhouse (2005b) admits that the integration of CA and ethnography has been a current movement and he also agrees on Silverman’s (1999a) argument for the rapprochement of CA and
ethnography. He suggests that CA analysts can initially analyse participants’ local context of their interaction and then conduct an ethnographic analysis to explicate the reasons pertaining to the institutional and cultural limitations, which will move the analysis from the micro to the macro levels.
Triangulation is articulated by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2007) as an “attempt to map out, or explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behaviour by studying it from more than one standpoint” (p. 141). In other words, triangulation helps to deepen the analysis and increase the validity by gathering multiple perspectives on the context locally produced. Moreover, the researcher bias can be hopefully reduced to the extent. In the present study, online observations, post-interviews and e-contacts are employed to support CA method in a supplementary role to give a more holistic view of online behaviours of the participants, which adds the essence to the validity of this study. More details about the triangulation in this study are provided in Chapter four, sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.4.