Feedback November 2002 (Vol 43 No 4)

8. Using both quantitative and qualitative evidence (how often something occurredand in what contexts), speculate about possible importance of the feature youstudied for viewers and the television-watching culture at large (tackle the so whatfactor)9. Suggest possible future research directionsBefore the much-anticipated Super Bowl Sunday, as each research plan is still takingshape, students describe to the class how their coding charts are being set up to ensurethey collect both numerical and descriptive data. Coding charts are blank sheets ofpaper with columns drawn on them. Each column is labeled for the particular elementto be tracked. For instance, if a student is counting replays, every time one appears, acheckmark goes into a column labeled according to game quarter. If a student needs todetermine numbers of closeups and replays that each opposing quarterback receives, acoding chart is a sensible way to arrive at an exact numerical comparison. Codingcharts also have wide columns on each side, set aside for details or descriptions ofaction or commentator quotes; in this way, then, what commentators say duringreplays also can be captured. Thus, students assemble quantitative and qualitative dataas game action proceeds. Some students tape the broadcast, and this is an advantage,but not a necessity. Classroom practice sessions prepare students for data-gathering.Twice, in classes prior to the actual Super Bowl telecast, we engage in evidencecollection together, using videotaped segments that I bring in for us to screen and codefrom division playoff games being aired nationally prior to the big culminating game.Competing teams, and storylines about teams and players change from playoff game toplayoff game, but coding remains a straightforward, uniform necessity for research.Since everyone learns the same research procedure, there is awareness of whateveryone is doing. On the Monday immediately following the Super Bowl, we talkinformally about whether the game itself was well-played or not. Then, a week later,with written papers completed, students present and discuss their individual findingsorally; to focus class attention on the exact direction each research project took, allpresenters distribute a single page abstract of their studies to classmates and wereconsider data totals (see #V) and possible interpretations of them.Together, we amass a sizeable accumulation of primary quantitative and qualitativeevidence. Aside from that, students tell us what they discovered that was unexpected,perhaps how certain images were especially highlighted by commentators’ spins. Forexample, a student might note that a player’s mistake seemed intensified by acommentator’s tone of voice, by humor or sense of shock conveyed in voice-over,accompanying a replay. Even though students have all watched the same game, theyfrequently disagree about what was most memorable or meaningful about a sportscast.Consider Karabi and Neil; each opted to research game commentary. Theirpreliminary assumptions about what would be important about voice-over and whateffects it might have on viewers were dissimilar. In presenting her coding plans beforethe game, Karabi had heard reservations from other students about her hypothesis thatwhite and non-white players would be described differently; aware of classmates’attitudes, she addressed this issue directly in her report:“As the clock rolled on, a trend began to surface and the results are evident in mygame coding charts for each quarter of the game, which lists when descriptions coupledBEA—Educating tomorrow’s electronic media professionals 41