Hi bb--
This message follows Kevin's very sage remarks, sniff
sniff.
I am not sure what reviewers were reacting too, reading
over your abstract in light of your additional info
and Kevin's remarks. Concerning the data analysis
part of the absract, here is what you wrote with a
little preamble from prior paragraph:
The theoretical
> analysis of our case study interprets the
> processes involved in the creation of more
> 'technologically advanced' forms of systemic
> activity, i.e. the use of computers to address
> lagging literacy achievement on standardized state
> tests.
>
> The data sources include state and national
> demographic databases that provide economic and
> population information, school district data, and
> the results of state mandated literacy testing.
> Artifacts such as the TLCF proposal and the RFP,
> web sites, lesson plans, letters, etc. also inform
> the theoretical analysis. Interviews with
> participants of the study were conducted at a
> distance by email and those conducted personally
> were audiotaped and digitized.
> Digitized copies were recorded on compact disk
> and given back to interviewees
> both as a means of respecting the
> researcher/subject relationship, and of providing
> the opportunity for follow-up through stimulated
> recall. Timelines describing individual
> (ontogenetic) development have been composed. The
> economic history of the district has been
> recorded. Field notes and digitized photographs
> complete the sources of data obtained.
-----------------------------------
Following Kevin's lead, it seems that you have a fine
summary of theory and of kinds of data being collected,
but how data relate to theory. I am not sure how this
could be done given word constraints. If you said less
about theory, you could killed off for being obscure
and ditto sources of data, since the theory is not
generally well known and you are bringing to bear a
variety of data sources in a systematic (dare I
suggest, non-eclectic?!! :-) ) way. But unless one
knows the theory, that is not evident.
If it will cheer you up at all, we just got turned down
for a grant because we spent all of our alloted words
on the design principles, not details of data
collection outcomes and specification of control
groups-- but if we had focused on such matters, the
design would have been completely obscure. The staff
officer strongly sympathized with our dilemma and
agreed, we were likely to loose no matter which route w
e chose.
When AERA is in Arizona, we can go out and walk among
the sage bushes. For this year, we will have to settle
for crayfish and bullshit.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 01:00:59 PST