Data Analysis and Interpretive Frameworks: an Online and Social MediaOriented Experience
Kirsi Neuvonen 2013
Skill Assignment #4:
Are you working with a research framework? What do you believe are the advantages and
disadvantages of using a framework when collecting and analyzing data? Five pages, use references.
Beginning to write and think about this assignment was quite a struggle for me. The first question in
my mind was: What do I understand about frameworks in general? What frameworks might suit in
my understanding of conducting research and analyzing phenomena in my data? What links are
there between different frameworks – what comes first, whose ideas are based on whose, and where
are the boundaries between a framework and a technique? At the moment I feel somehow
overwhelmed with surfing in the jungle of different theories, frameworks, philosophical
backgrounds and techniques. I know (or I think I know), how I want to start with analyzing my
data, but I know I still have a huge work ahead of me in going through more of literature, making
more clearance and especially finding congruence. Thus, at this point the aim for me at this
assignment is to make my things more clear to me what comes to the philosophical basis of my
thinking. I have consciously added “subtopics” to this assignment and also used Wikipedia as my
reference with different frameworks. As such, the inquiry is still an ongoing process.
In this essay, at first, I will go through some basic premises behind my understanding of humans as
social beings and partners in interaction. I will be linking these premises in to my understanding of
aided communication. Secondly, I will shortly go through the philosophical and research
frameworks and techniques that might apply in my research. In the end I will go through some
advantages and disadvantages in having a framework when collecting and analyzing data.
The initial question - am I working with a research framework - I might answer: yes and no.
I recognize that most of my ideas and understanding about the phenomena I study come from
different philosophical or theoretical frameworks, but I cannot name an exact theory that I would
base on all of my premises – not to say I would have only one theory. As a consequence, in this
essay I am going through some thoughts and ideas of research frameworks that I know so far (based
on the literature I have reviewed and the knowledge I have gained during the lessons) and that
might apply to my research. As a multidisciplinary field of speech therapy, biological and
psychological approaches are also very apparent. In my study we study individuals with normal
intellectual capacity, in principal, but neuropsychologically assessing none of the users of aided
communication could actually perform in linguistic or non-linguistic tests as well as the comparison
children did. In this essay I will not go through this part of my theories, but analyzing data, I need to
be aware of these features in my research area.
Understanding backgrounds of interaction and conversation
Next I introduce five basic premises that at this moment I have considering humans in interaction
and communication.
Human being is social by its nature; most of the things we experience have their roots in social
interaction and social knowledge (Trigg 1985.)
Our world consists of invisible thoughts and ideas, which are manifested in common discourse and
through social meaning. Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge which roots are
in the work and ideas of Lev Vygotsky. For me, one of the most important theories of Vygotsky is
the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1982). The zone of proximal development means the
difference in between what the person actually can do and what s/he can achieve only by help of a
more capable person. The ZPD is the area of learning the child needs most encouraging and support
in order to achieve the next level of development. Vygotsky´s theories are widely used in speech
and language pathology as well in development as learning language. In aided communication this
understanding of supporting learning is very crucial. As the child cannot develop speech, s/he may
need augmentative or alternative communication. The situation is new to both partners and thus
there are new skills to achieve in the zone of proximal development. As a consequence we need to
understand, which skills are the most important ones to learn in order to provide the best possible
support for the child and thus enable their participation in conversations and wider social contexts.
Interaction and communication is based on understanding that humans are very much alike and
they may communicate of things that are out of their immediate presence.
Interaction between people - as understood as human to human communication - is based on the
idea of uniqueness of human species in the capability of intersubjective understanding. As humans
we try to make sense of our world – and in conversations we try to make sense of the meanings
created in mutual interaction (Shank 2002.) In my study I emphasize understanding and meaning in
social interaction, trying to view things as individuals themselves would understand it.
Language is uniquely a human feature learned in the zone of proximal development
Language is one of the basic skills learned in the zone of proximal development. Children learn
language with the help of a more capable person. As langue and parol needs to be separated (as F.
de Saussure states) the same applies to aided communication. Children without speech as a way of
expressing themselves need to achieve skills in language as well as a way of expressing their
thoughts through words or symbols. The language learning process is very much alike as with the
speaking children – in close connection with other people – but the challenges are greater as the
children are not able to use and try their new skills through speech.
In order to achieve mutual understanding in interaction, we need a lot of pragmatic knowledge;
background knowledge, understanding of symbolic meanings of words and understanding of the
context. Pragmatic studies in child language development have roots in the need to understand
children using language and understanding contextual meanings (McTear 1985.) Children using
communication aid may have lots of challenges in pragmatic skills what comes to taking
responsibility in communication, communicative competence and different functions in
communication (Iacono 2003.)
As Wittgenstein (see e.g. Trigg 1985) argues the words make sense in their context. It is interesting
that this context-orientation is not dependent on purely communication with speech but also seen in
aided communication. The context of aided communication may be partly similar to typical
conversational setting but there are specific features what comes to e.g. the use of time, the
restricted use of vocabulary, the presence of a communication aid and the interpretative
communication style. The conversation through aided communication is also always based on coconstruction.
Co-construction in typical conversations means that mutually shared knowledge and meanings are
sometimes created together; one person is finishing the other persons thought or message. In aided
communication co-construction is inevitable; the more abled (in this case the speaking) partner coconstructs the messages produced by the non-speaking partner. Co-construction thus works as a
facilitative factor in supporting the mutual conversation of the partners. The risk in here is that the
facilitative partner interprets messages through his or her understanding of the context and may
sometimes even over interpret the messages. If we think that meaning is created in this process, we
need to question if the meaning is true to both individuals as the speaking partner is usually forced
to take greater responsibility in conversation. As a result the meaning may be true to both
communication partners or it may be true to just another. Co-construction is thus a central
phenomenon that needs to be taken into account and interpreted when analyzing data.
We are “products” of our culture – our families, education, environment, society etc. As such, our
knowledge base, our understanding, our interpretations of our experiences is very much intertwined
with our cultural heritage in smaller and larger scale (see e.g. Trigg 1985, Shank 2002)
Cultural phenomena display a crucial part as well in typical conversation as in aided
communication. People using aided communication are individuals themselves with their unique
features, experiences, opinions and social culture. Children are part of their familial and social
culture – and the interaction they are having is learned in their zone of proximal development. As
stated before, the interactional features are different from the “typical” features; the learning
environment is usually more restricted, and thus the skills learned are very much dependent on the
people in their microculture .The interpretations made about the interactional styles and features
should thus take into account the uniqueness of the context where the people are living – and
understanding of the meanings the people in the interaction have.
Studying research frameworks leading to techniques in analyzing conversations
In phenomenology and the study of interaction (or language in interaction) I find interesting the
attempt to “get inside” the meanings and the world of the person (Shank 2002.) According to
phenomenology, what we know are the effects of things on our awareness, not the things
themselves. On the other hand - as we have learned during the course – phenomenology takes a
much broader and holistic point of view on people and their experience – not only how we think of
them. Alfred Schutz emphasizes as one of the unique feature for human kind the possibility to
interpret one another and to be interpreted and understood (Trigg 1985.) How could
communication partners make each other understood, if they would not have this unique social
understanding? The question arises though – what are the specific similarities and differences what
comes to aided communication? One specific feature is the concept of co-construction which I have
discussed in this essay. Another will be the usual presence of symbols in aided communication; thus
we would need to take into account the symbolic meanings of the words and picture, to some point.
As an interesting finding (according to Wikipedia) Schutz was developing his phenomenological
theories in conjunction with theories of Herbert Mead, which lead us to Symbolic interaction.
Schutz´s phenomenological and philosophical approach has also been influential on
ethnomethodology and conversation analysis – which to some point are methodological choices for
my data analysis, so far.
According to Herbert Blumer`s Symbolic Interaction theories there are three basic premises of the
perspective: (Wikipedia)



"Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
"The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one
has with others and the society."
"These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by
the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."
These premises are very close to my understanding of communicative interaction as a means of
creating mutual understanding. We base our understanding on the things from our knowledge base
and from our meaning structures. In and through interaction between people and e.g. conversations
we try to create mutually shared meanings. As stated before, an interesting feature in typical aided
communication is the use of symbols. As the communication of the non-speaking partner is based
mainly on symbolic communication, should we also analyze the meanings of the symbols and the
meanings of understanding these symbols? Is interpreting symbols different from interpreting
speech?
One of the theories based on symbolic interaction theories and phenomenological theories of
consciousness and people´s experience of something is ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology is
interested in people having certain social order in their everyday life (Trigg 1985.) The aim of
ethnomethodology is to study these social orders and try to describe the common sense people use
in different situations. These social settings and everyday rules manifest clearly in everyday
conversations. The problem with ethnomethodology seems to be the lack of exact methodological
choices – instead it is one of the background theories for e.g. conversation analysis.
Conversation analysis is a data-driven technique trying to solve the structures and rules in
everyday conversations between people or in institutional settings (Hakulinen 1998.) Conversation
analysis is a technique based on ethnomethodological framework and Erving Goffman´s concept of
social order. Harvey Sacks and Emanuel Schegloff developed conversation analysis to study
interaction (mainly conversations) in natural settings in everyday life (Raatikainen 2004.) Thinking
of the concepts and methods of conversation analysis, I have some discrepancy in between
empirical observation and interpretative understanding. Conversation analysis emphasizes that we
should not make interpretations but instead we should empirically try to see what is happening. The
aim is to describe as accurately as possible the linguistic and non-linguistic features in conversation.
But – again – our understanding of the world (as a result of our culture, concepts and meaning
structures) will definitely influence on how we describe (and also interpret) what is happening. How
can we not interpret what is happening in the conversation especially when we are trying to
understand a very asymmetrical and symbolic aided communication?
In conversation analysis interaction is understood as communication partners´ shared meanings and
mutual construction. Using conversation analysis as a technique is well suitable for analyzing
typical (”traditional”) conversations, but using it in aided communication is more of a challenge as
aided communication has special features what comes to the structures of conversation (like pauses,
gaze, repair structures) usually having different meanings. Aided communication also has a very
distinct feature per se; there is always “a third partner” in interaction, which would be the
communication aid. On the other hand studying these specific features is very interesting and the
suppositions behind conversation analysis what comes to social order in human communication,
seems to apply to aided communication as well.
Finding advantages and disadvantages in having a framework when collecting and analyzing
data
As I am part of a larger international research group, I did not take part in planning the collection of
the data. Instead, I was the one who collected the data in Finland. We collected quite a large
amount of data including conversations, interviews, narratives, language testing, picture / symbol
recognition etc. Personally – in my mind – I have criticized the amount of data because with less
and more targeted data we might have been able to collect it in a more reasonable way, but on the
other hand we have quite amount of data now to choose from. Afterwards thinking, I should have
known more of my own data analysis methods before collecting the data, as I might have done field
notes for myself more carefully. As I have not done that, I just need to trust in the data and start
discussing with what I have.
Having a framework in the course of data collection would definitely have helped me in
concentrating on my observational skills. I do not think I would have changed anything in the actual
collection (as we had quite a strict protocol to follow), but I might have observed the context and
situation more carefully. Trusting on remembering things is definitely not a very useful technique,
but on the other hand, I can´t trust in any other data than what I actually see in our video clips,
anyhow. In a situation where the data collection procedure is not guided, having a more detailed
understanding of data analysis techniques seems quite necessary. On the other hand – when
collecting natural data, the data should be gathered as it is and let it speak for itself later on.
As I am in the beginning of analyzing the data and I have a yet a lot of transcribing to do, I have
started with my first analysis as “piloting” my techniques and familiarizing with my data. I used
conversation analysis in analyzing the first conversation and found quite interesting points in the
interaction in aided communication. As CA does not seem to answer my questions in a suitable
way, I need to do some way of coding for the themes that arise from the data (the function of the
gaze, length of the pauses, repair strategies used etc.) For me, coding would mean finding especially
pragmatic functions in the aided communication situation – for now.
I find Grounded theory methods and thematic analysis quite interesting in a way – as Glaser and
Strauss argue: Complex settings are best understood by starting at “ground zero” and letting the
data themselves quide the growth and development of the theory (Shank 2002) The way I
understand grounded theory at this moment, is the possibility to build the theory from the ground up
analyzing the data thoughtfully creating concepts and categories thus building a theory. In my data
discussing with the data, analyzing concepts and building categories would be especially useful.
Still, behind the grounded theory, every researcher brings his or her understanding, concepts and
values in to the starting point of theory building. Thus there is lots of room for interpretation and
letting the data guide us. A framework might guide me in expecting to find something, but it might
also restrict me from understanding unexpected findings – or exactly the opposite. I think keeping
an open mind when analyzing the data might be the most important thing.
What might be an advantage of a clear framework might be the guidance a framework offers to our
thinking and understanding. On the other hand the disadvantage might be the opposite: to restrict
our thinking and understanding. As far as I have come to this point of my essay, I might say, that I
do have some research framework behind me after all. At least I have made some of my
interpretations more clear to me, as I have also raised a few important questions for me to think.
One of the most important questions risen during the studies this far is the question of
interpretation. How much can we make interpretations about other peoples´ meanings based on our
knowledge and our meanings? It seems that interpretations will be necessary but on the other hand
in course of analyzing data I trust that the data will be discussing with me as I try to find the most
important features under my study.
References:
Hakulinen, A. (1998) Johdanto. Teoksessa: L.Tainio (toim) Keskustelunanalyysin perusteet, s.1317. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Iacono, T. (2003) Pragmatic development in individuals who use AAC. D. R. Beukelman & J.
Reichle (Eds.) Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC. (s.323-360) Baltimore:
Brookes Publishing Co.
McTear, M. (1985) Pragmatic disorders: A question of direction. British Journal of Communication
Disorders 20, 119-127.
Raatikainen, P.(2004) Ihmistieteet ja filosofia. Tampere: Gaudeamus.
Shank, G. (2002) Qualitative Research: A Personal Skills Approach. Merrill Prentice Hall.
Columbus, Ohio.
Trigg, R. (1985) Understanding social science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Inc.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1982) Ajattelu ja kieli. Espoo: Weilin+Göös (the original in Russian 1931)