CITATION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:
Cite as: Spirek, M. M. (1999, May). Statistics as rhetorical and critical tools for Sense-Making analytics. Paper presented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco.
© Melissa M. Spirek (1999).

ESSENCE OF PROJECT:
I conceptualize my interest in Sense-Making and quantitative and qualitative research methods as a research program. The driving force behind this work is what I believe is the unique opportunity Sense-Making provides scholars. With Sense-Making, both quantitative and qualitative studies are supported, valued and yes, encouraged (Dervin, 1990). Here is a rigorous, parsimonious, theoretical and applied, communication framework that calls for both quantitative and qualitative research methods (Dervin, 1983-4). My current read of the general communication literature leads me to search for investigations that embrace statistical techniques that focus not merely on difference testing or techniques that ostracize complex and or individual input but rather focuses on pattern recognition. Sense-Making provides just such a scenario. Specifically my training and reading in statistical issues makes me conclude that there are statistical models that have yet to be tapped in creative ways by Sense-Making scholars. I hope to bring these models to the Sense-Making community (Neter, Kutner, Nacthsheim, & Wasserman, 1996). Nonparametric modeling and repeated measures designs similar to those utilized with psychophysiological measures are two such examples. At the same time, it is imperative for me when I make this recommendation to recognize that these very statistical choices are rhetorical devices.

THE REASONS I TOOK THIS ROAD:
When the terms qualitative and quantitative research emerge in scholarly circles—at conferences, as titles of refereed journals, within methodology textbooks, at faculty meetings and within articles—oftentimes the path of the discourse is one of juxtaposition where the two categories are mutually exclusive. It is not uncommon to hear a scholar’s rich publishing record described as being placed in this dichotomous typology as being quantitative or qualitative. Even some of our academic departments promote their graduate programs as being where their professors conduct mostly quantitative or mostly qualitative scholarship and academic departments list ads in professional journals seeking faculty who conduct qualitative or who conduct quantitative research. Given this bipolar methodological situation, it is not surprising to find that the norm in the social sciences is to present qualitative and quantitative research as being two distinct epistemologies where never the two will meet. Quantitative and qualitative methods are typically explicated by focusing entirely upon the differences of the two approaches. In some methods books, qualitative or quantitative research is even explained relative to the other. Some differentiation should be expected but what fascinates me is the potential of the inductive and deductive process provided by Sense-Making. I believe that the choices of the statistical analyses in the Sense-Making quantitative studies has been restrictive up until now and that the quantitative investigations can provide additional insights with the appropriate analytics. I want to try diverse statistical techniques to determine what contribution, if any, these additional tools have to offer.

THE BEST OF WHAT I HAVE ACHIEVED:
A data set consisting of Sense-Making studies is the best of what I have achieved. I hope to conduct a meta-analysis on the quantitative studies so that I can better understand the void in the quantitative dimension of Sense-Making. This meta-analysis will assist me to first document and then guide my direction for demonstrating potential paths for future Sense-Making studies. I like the fact that I have included conference papers, dissertations and theses in this data because it is important to include work that might otherwise be disregarded because it is not published by a refereed scholarly journal (yet a filter which could influence the outcome). In my opinion, these additional outlets help to contribute to a more colorful but also a more complete picture of what is being tackled with quantitative studies.

WHAT HAS BEEN HELPFUL:
Brenda’s mentoring, the sharing of references in the Sense-Making community, the Sense-Making web page, email discussions, and the auditing of additional statistics courses in nonparametric statistics have been invaluable. These elements have made it possible to tackle this project in a timely manner. These forums help me to continue when at times I frame this project as an overwhelming task (see struggle). The sharing of information within the Sense-Making community made me realize that there is a place for my contribution of presenting statistics as rhetorical and critical tools for the scholar interested in Sense-Making analytics.

WHAT I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH:
Two struggles have kept me up at night. The first struggle is that I am so keenly aware that the very statistical tools that I examine, test and propose are rhetorical tools (Abelson, 1995). The tools themselves are creations that allow me to respond to gaps. The second major struggle I work with is that some Sense-Making scholars conceptualize quantitative research as being exemplified by close-ended questions where the richness and depth of multiple individual responses are completely dismissed. I wonder to what degree this belief has resulted in quantitative research being the second of two choices Sense-Making scholars consider when advancing rich and creative research questions.

WHAT WOULD HELP NOW:
I want face-to-face discussion with Sense-Making scholars to hear their concerns and experiences with the application and the avoidance of their use of statistics with Sense-Making data. I have read many studies but I seek the stories behind the material I have read. The sharing of Sense-Making scholars’ misgivings with quantitative scholarship will guide me with my writing on this topic because it is the Sense-Making audience in particular that I hope to serve and perhaps inspire as I have been inspired by those who have come before.

PROJECT ABSTRACT:
Although Sense-Making studies have moved way beyond the stage as being merely exploratory, a review of the literature quickly established that the majority of Sense-Making publications have turned to traditional statistical means for empirically testing the framework. The purpose of this project is to advance the number of creative statistical means by which scholars can remain true to the tenets of Sense-Making while contributing to a level of understanding and explanation not typically seen in quantitative Sense-Making articles. While attempting to reach this goal, I want to emphasize my recognition that statistics are indeed rhetorical creations guided by agreed upon standards in the field of mathematics (Tabachnik & Fidel, 1986). First a meta-analyses of the existing Sense-Making quantitative literature will be conducted and then an investigation of the strengths and limitations of various statistical tools not typically seen in Sense-Making studies will be advanced.

REFERENCES:
(For references to works by Dervin and colleagues, see Dervin’s writings: Chronological listing.)

Abelson, R. P. (1995). Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nacthsheim, C. J. & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.

OTHER MATERIALS BY THIS AUTHOR ON THIS WEB SITE:
See: http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/AAauthors/authorlistspirek.html