Artifact Analysis

Rhetorical artifact analysis constitutes the core of my research methods. For analysis, I collected multiple sources of data—student papers and portfolios, their reflections, in-class writings, formal/informal notes, blogs or other online postings, and their websites and

multimedia compositions. I then triangulated those data with data from other sources, such as participant interview transcripts; course/unit goals; course materials including syllabus and assignment descriptions, assessment criteria and writing prompts or heuristics; and my personal reflections and observation. I made triangulation the central part of my analysis because it is highly valued in qualitative research for its function of cross-verifying interpretations and research findings with additional testimonials. Many research scholars like Stake laud triangulation as an analytical tool. In his words, “triangulation is a form of confirmation and validation” as much as “a form of differentiation (Flick, 2002)” for “giving more respect to multiple points of view” (123). He further argues that triangulation

may make us more confident that we have the meaning right, or it may make us more confident that we need to examine differences to see important multiple meanings. You might call it a win–win situation. If the additional checking confirms that we have seen it right, we win. If the additional checking does not confirm, it may mean that there are more meanings to unpack, another way of winning….With triangulation, our research can be improved either way. (123-124)

%)"

" ""

His point is that data triangulation increases the validity and accuracy of our interpretations. That is precisely so because triangulation is a rigorous process of looking at a thing, individual or data from multiple vantage points. Blakeslee and Fleischer reinforce this idea by adding that

triangulation involves the process of examining the same object, person, meaning or situation in multiple ways to “determine if each way reveals the same or similar information—to see, in other words, if the multiple ways of looking at an event or situation confirm what you are seeing.

If they don’t, which sometimes happens, you need to consider what might be causing the discrepancy” (105). The merit of triangulation lies in that it points out and accounts for

disconfirming data too. As the above duo suggests, triangulation of multiple sources of data also helped me explore the factors causing discrepancy in my research findings. I duly accounted for any disconfirming data causing discrepancy in meanings or giving way to new themes or

interpretations, which is to say that I took into consideration both evidence and counterevidence to emerging themes and interpretations. The special significance of disconfirming data is

underscored by a number of other scholars such as Smagorinsky as well, who says that, first, such data “may disrupt neat interpretations of the trends and complicate conclusions available from the analysis” and “[S]econd, disconfirming data may serve as a separate focus of analysis”

(397-398).

In addition to accounting for disconfirming data, I also focused on the context in which my students produced their artifacts, in an effort to examine them rhetorically. In Blakeslee and Fleischer’s words, the “context includes the author, the author’s purpose in writing (the exigence or rhetorical situation for the document), the manner in which the document was written (e.g., collaboratively, with reviews by higher ups), the audience(s) for the document, the mode of delivery, and so on” (120). In other words, I looked at the rhetorical situation of writers or, in

%*"

" ""

Stake’s terms, the “situationality” of composition while examining context closely for potential meanings. I foregrounded situationality in my analysis because “[S]ituations are extra important for qualitative research. The theorists invented the word “situationality,” referring to the attention given to particular places, times, social backgrounds, communication styles, and other

backgrounds for the activities and relationships being studied. The situation provides part of the meaning for qualitative phenomena” (Stakes 52).

Similarly, I studied linguistic or discourse features of artifacts as part of rhetorical analysis, which “entails looking at language use” in general and “taking into account the setting and situation in which the text was created or is functioning (see Huckin, 1992)” (Blakeslee and Fleischer 122). In the analysis process, I closely examined “the register of various words and phrases in the student’s text: Are they formal or informal; are they Standard English or dialect?”

(Blakeslee and Fleischer 123). In addition, I analyzed student texts thematically, focusing on their content and keeping a particular eye on whether “a particular idea or subject recurs in the writing or if there are particular places where contradictions arise” (Blakeslee and Fleischer 124).

The discursive met rhetorical as I looked into discourse features and registers side by side with context and “situationality” of artifacts being analyzed.

Other factors that played into artifact analysis are my personal and theoretical lenses.

According to Blakeslee and Fleischer, “[T]he personal and theoretical lenses you hold will determine both what artifacts you choose to collect and how you choose to analyze them. These lenses will ultimately also influence what you find in your analyses and what meaning you make of what you find” (125). My personal lens, I must acknowledge here, is one of a transnational student researcher in the U.S. (for detailed discussion—see next section). So, revealing my institutional affiliation and ideological orientation can serve two functions. One, disclosing my

&+"

" ""

positionality is a part of my research ethics, and two, such a disclosure puts personal biases and values up front so that readers won’t be misled and, therefore, can make informed decisions or judgments about my ideas or values.

As an international graduate student and a writing instructor in a U.S. research university, my positionality is implicated in this research. Not only mine, but each one of researcher’s

“positionality” becomes implicated in research because, as Blakeslee and Fleischer explain,

“[E]ach of us brings cultural, ethnic, gender, class, theoretical, and occupational biases to our work, which create certain lenses through which we view what we observe and hear… [we]

cannot ignore or suddenly eliminate such biases. Rather, we need to be very aware of these stances and awake to their implications for our research” (12). As such, positionality, subjectivity or location of researcher and its implication in research is being consistently taken up in rhetoric and composition scholarship too. In that regard, Blakeslee and Fleischer report:

[c]omposition scholars have increasingly addressed the issue of bias and its place in research (e.g., Borland, 1991; Kirsch & Ritchie, 1995; Moss, 1992; Yagleski, 2001).

Many of these scholars talk about bias in terms of personal subjectivities that arise from our own perspectives and that influence how we view and interpret situations. They argue that subjectivities are always present in our research. What we need to do, they say, is reflect on and acknowledge them. (29)

As stated above, acknowledging biases is also being ethical in research. So, researcher’s positionality and perspectives should not go unacknowledged.

In addition to acknowledging researcher’s personal biases and positionality, another aspect of being ethical is disclosing the theoretical lens informing the research project being undertaken. In that respect, I bring particular theoretical lens to this study. Multiliteracies and its

&!"

" ""

associated issues such as globalization, intercultural communication/composition, new media, and World Englishes inform my study, and I use them as theoretical grounds while analyzing research artifacts. In other words, I base this study in the theoretical discussion of relevant

insights from interconnected fields of multiliteracies—World Englishes, new media, intercultural communication, globalization, and rhetoric and composition. When appropriate, I draw on pertinent ideas from the published literatures and accounts from these allied fields to seamlessly interweave the theory and praxis in my research report.

In artifact analysis, I particularly focus, among other things, on topics students choose to work on, their composing or research processes, their cross-cultural composition styles including a remix of personal and academic styles, their organization patterns, their use of World Englishes or multiple languages in their compositions, effectiveness and appropriateness of their source use in their alphabetic or digital composition/s, and influence of their cross-academic and literacy traditions in the artifacts they produce. But following Cindy Johanek’s call that “those who engage in inquiry through research are “critical truth seekers” (281), not merely defenders of their own preferences, ideologies, or writing styles” (105), I do not remain blind or orthodox to any of my biases but, instead, critically engage them while scrutinizing research artifacts from multiple standpoints.