Reading Log #3 - Part 3

Reading Log, Creswell, Chap. 9
Summary:
The chapter begins with four presentations of what Creswell calls rhetorical issues. The first: Reflexivity and representation, in which the researcher acknowledges her own stance within the writing, the interaction between the subject and the researcher, and how this interaction informs the study. This issue is also concerned with the impact on the subjects, their ability to inform, edit, and approve of the writing concerning themselves, as well as the impact upon the reader.

The reader, or audience, is the second of the rhetorical issues. Creswell maintains that the final writeup of our research must consider the audience and will be structured differently depending upon whom we think will be reading our work.

Encoding, or the way in which we form our narrative, is the third issue. Creswell gives the example of the Richardson (1990) study, which was written in three distinct ways in order to reach three separate audiences. He then gives examples of various ways of encoding for academic audiences.

Quotes, the fourth rhetorical issue, are broken down into three types by Creswell: short eye-catching quotes, embedded quotes in which brief statements are placed within the researcher's narrative, and longer quotations. With this last type, Creswell cautions that they are difficult to use because they may contain many ideas and require setup and explanation for the reader.

The author finishes the chapter with example rhetorical structures for each of the five qualitative approaches used in the book.

Reflection:
Creswell has a number of things to say in this chapter that wildly appeal to the writer in me. His suggestions to play with form, experiment with style, and even look to methods of communicating that step outside the textual are very freeing and exciting. This is the permission to write as I love to write that I have been seeking since starting my doctoral program! But...I wonder how far one can really go and still find acceptance from professors, scholars, and publishers? My past attempts at playing with the structure of my papers has always been viewed with a rather critical eye - I did not put this information in at the accepted point, that bit of literature should have been included later or earlier, etc. The risk one runs in playing with form is that those who grade or assess are often married to a particular format and frown on those who risk stepping outside the box.

Alas,the methodology that I have chosen, phenomenology, will likely not provide me with an opportunity to test this theory. Creswell states that phenomenological studies require a highly structured approach to the composition of the writing, one with which I will be less able to test the boundaries of acceptable practice.