Reading Log #3 (Part 1)

Creswell, ch. 9

Summary: Creswell begins chapter 9 with references to other researchers’ descriptions of the “architecture” of a qualitative study. This apt analogy conceptualizes a study as a 3-dimensional space in which the researcher interacts with a combination of methodology, data, and insights to provide structure and perspective for the study’s eventual audience. Creswell identifies four rhetorical considerations common to every qualitative study: reflexivity and representation, audience, encoding, and quotes (p. 177).

Reflexivity and representation refer to the position of the researcher/writer in relation to the subject matter and the participants. Creswell is firm in his assertion that writing and interpretation are inseparable from personal perspectives; researchers must carefully identify and reveal their biases. Similarly, any given audience will situate the work in a context of personal or group biases.

Audience, Creswell’s second rhetorical issue, is a shaping force on the writer’s work. Whether the audience is professional, popular, political, or comprised of participants, the writer will emphasize components of the study deemed important to that target audience. The written report may be constructed in ways intended to enrich scholarly understanding, expose the public to an idea, influence political policy, or affirm the study’s participants.

Creswell describes encoding as the writer’s choice of words based on his or her own biases and the perceived biases of the intended audience. Encoding consists primarily of conveying information in ways that resonate with those who will be reading the study. Encoding includes complexity of vocabulary, level of formality, emphasis on particular aspects of the writer’s experience or interests, use of graphics or other imagery, and emphasis or de-emphasis of particular aspects of the study in accordance with the priorities of the audience.

Finally, Creswell discusses the use of quotes in writing, emphasizing quotations of various types and lengths. Short quotes, dialogue, embedded quotes, and long quotations are all described, along with their respective uses.

After discussing each of these four rhetorical issues, Creswell provides examples of the main methodological approaches and how each might look. These examples include overall rhetorical structure (the spatial blueprint of studies written from each approach) and embedded rhetorical structure (the rhetorical tools used by the writer to effectively report the study to a particular audience).

Reflection: I love rhetorical devices! This chapter provides an honest perspective on “selling” the importance of a study to the people who need to know about it. By using language well and crafting the study to meet the interests of the intended audience, the writer/researcher can constructively deal with basic issues of varying priorities and perspectives. I found it refreshing to read a head-on admission that we phrase our work in certain ways to accomplish particular ends. I suspect there’s a general tendency to view such linguistic sculpting as manipulative or dishonest despite the pragmatism of such an approach. The discussion of overall and embedded rhetorical structures in phenomenological research studies was particularly useful to me, but I was mostly just happy that Creswell emphasized the power of language and structure in research report writing. Now I suppose I just have to use that power for good…