Data and Datum

Datum, Data and Multiple Data

The most difficult part of the research is an attempt to decide the kind, nature and settings of data. I learnt very critical insights on the data. In this post, I preferred to speak loudly about the data. The old definition of data is based on the separation on two categories that are physical and metaphysical. This first philosophical separation is always defined as the quantities and qualities differences. The main question that I have to ask many and many time is related with the will to know. If we focus on the way where we have to articulate the truth and its meaning, there would be multiple ways to measure it. Before going to the data nature, I would like to underline the differences between the types of knowledge. I can make two general categorical truck for two types of questions that are know-that and know-how. First type is relatively and mainly based on the quantities, since the main concerns and intends for collecting the data is based on the attempt to know that the measurement creates differences to frame the similarities. In other word, the quantifying is the first objectification process emerged from the domination of physical science. Know-how is mostly based on the functioning the truth and meaning. For example, we can define the pen by quantifying its appearances, but how it is used should be explained by the qualities. As it is know that the differences between explanation and understanding are related with the differences between know-that and know-how.

When I consider the discourse as data, data as discourse, I keep being suspicious about this basic determination is still acceptable in the field of discourse and conservation analysis. Let me ask my question in a different way, the data in discourse are based on the explanation of discourse, or functionality of the discourse. For my data, I like to use the metaphor of Benjamin. He defined historical materialism as a puppet under the mechanical machine of chess. Discourse is the functionality of game as unity of experience, without it, I could not both explain and understand the structure of mechanical machine of chess. Data is about me, about itself, about time, about place and about is about. I could be changed, or flied away. But, the aim of explanation and understanding could be reached by discourse/ data.

           

Online, Data and Method

I preferred to write reflection about this article since I had some difficulties about using conversation analysis method on an email data. For my own reasoning and justification, I need to read more about the online-oriented data and conversation analysis. As we all know that internet is relatively new phenomenon and the discussions around it are still blurred and flowing. There are many challenges and debates around online-based relations and their corpus. With the emerging online courses, the instructors and students start to have relatively new environments and different ground to communicate. At this post, I tried to follow the data, field and idea in this particular articles to generate more broad questions enabling me to inquiry about the online communications.

Article is about 20 email interactions in online counseling and its relations with counseling dropouts. How clients and counselors build and maintain the online counseling relationships is, therefore, an important area of study and is presumably related to treatment outcomes? This is the general research question of article. For this post, I am specifically interested in how the nature of data is presented and how the method is defined and utilized.

Descriptive numbers, ethical concerns and time span are the main frame for the nature of data. These are the implicit producers of our general assumptions. I certainly agree up providing those information to readers and reviewers. My critique is based on the larger context. I do not think that we have the same perception of time as well as subjects. Let explain you that our existence in online space seems different than the actual existence. Furthermore, we have to redefine the time, subject and ethical concerns for the online interactions which are different than actual ones. For example, there are many software enabling us to use language in a better way. Written text is mostly automatically corrected by computer. In this sense, the variety of research question with conversation analysis is going to be changed and redefined.

The two main conversation analysis concepts were used in the article. These are the action of request and the design of request. While reading the article, I remained in between the yes and no position. This means that I could not agree upon their whole constructions. I have some problem with my data. With the help of some software, you can easily define the lexical interconnection throughout the entire textual data. There are still space to focus on both micro-micro structures in online interactions. On the other hand, what if all of them are become artificial, like automatic email responder? I am interested in simulations, manicans and communications. This is my big question to understand my data and methods.

Comments are about the article, titled Complaining and Management of Face in Online Counseling by Wkyke Stommel and Fleur var der Houwen