Supporting Discourse-Based Interviews:�Developing a Methodological Resource�for Researchers & Students Using�Design Thinking

​

Follow along → dtext.org/dbi

Our team�Your dean search candidates

2

Neil Baird

Bowling Green�State University

Bradley Dilger

Purdue University

Today’s talk

• Why the discourse-based interview?
• Why a public resource?
• Why design thinking?
• Summary of project overall
• Case study of first artifact
• Next steps + your help

3

1.

Why focus on the DBI?

DBIs identify writers’ tacit knowledge.

​

Interviewers familiarize themselves with writers’ texts and contexts, then ask about alternatives to specific words, phrases, or forms.

“Here you do X. In other pieces of writing, you do Y or Z. In this passage, would you be willing to do Y or Z rather than X?”

5

Odell, Lee, Goswami, Dixie, & Herrington, Anne. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In Peter Mosenthal, Lynne Tamor, & Sean A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 221–236). Longman. Reprinted in Composition Forum 49 (Summer 2022).

DBIs generated some of the most important insights in our study of writing transfer.

6

Study of writing transfer�in the major at�Western Illinois U

Methodological study�with DBI researchers including Odell, Goswami, & Herrington

Special issue of Composition Forum�(49, Summer 2022)

7

2.

Why build a�public resource?

We admire the work of McIntyre, Ridolfo, & others

9

Goswami: Youth activists … have formed communities that are so powerful that they reach millions. Discourse-based interviews could develop the evidence, the data and the narratives to demonstrate that young people are essential participants in public discourse, with extensive and complex �tacit knowledge.

10

“

3.

Why design thinking?

Design thinking has helped us move our research forward�and has been useful in teaching as well.

12

There’s good work in tech comm & broader writing studies

13

Design Thinking: A 5-Stage Process

Design thinking: five iterative, messy elements

14

Greenwood et al (2019): if we adopt design thinking as a fixed, linear practice in isolation from aspects of collaboration, dissensus, ideology, power, and so on,�we flatten design thinking and disrupt some of its potential.

15

“

4.

What are we�trying to build?

We think the podcast and TV series�Song Exploder offers a good model for explaining how discourse-based interviews are crafted.

17

Experienced researchers highlight these issues

• Research questions used
• Definition of tacit knowledge
• Question formation methods
• Media or technologies used as artifacts or to stimulate recall
• Engagement with time in research design
• Type, duration, & sequencing of interviews
• Preparation for interviews

18

Focus groups have shaped toolkit development

• Shared resources need accompanying annotation�and reflection
• Online case studies can situate interviews in context
• Seemingly mundane documents (recruitment emails, incentive forms) are valuable
• Short videos should speak to different parts of interview research processes
• Simulation could help navigate ethical restrictions that protect participants

19

We hope to learn even more by expanding and combining our studies.

What can employing design thinking to create a web-based toolkit for DBIs teach us about applications of design thinking for methodological research�in writing studies?

How has the DBI evolved since its codification by Cooper, Odell, Goswami, & Herrington?

20

5.

Case study:�First design artifact

22

coding data, how does it work?!?!?!!1

“Coding summit”�Short talks by current and former students

23

WPA:WPA article spreadsheet (1/2)

24

WPA:WPA article spreadsheet → table (2/2)

25

Student researchers identified specific needs

• Explain how behaviors, influences, and other elements to code were identified
• Tell story of one or two participants so there’s an example that runs across the whole sheet
• Describe how labor was divided and how differences were resolved
• Describe how coding shaped writing
• What went wrong? How was that fixed?

26

Developing a screencast version of the coding talk: Second cut

27

6.

Next steps

And — how you can help

More iterations of more artifacts!

29

Your help is welcome!

• Sharing existing resources & study artifacts
• Participating in focus groups, interviews, or expert reviews
• Providing feedback on our work in progress
• Helping us test our work in progress
• Helping us write grants and identify other ways to make our project and others sustainable�

30

Thank you!

Contribute, read our paper, & more: dtext.org/dbi

Email us both: dbi@dtext.org

See acknowledgements, references, and�image credits on next slide and our web site

31

Credits & acknowledgements

User testing:�User Research vs. Usability Testing | by Sarah Lee | Build Diligent

McIntyre resources�Resources — Megan M. McIntyre

RhetMap: Rhet map

Paper prototyping composite: Paper Prototyping: A Small Investment that Produces Valuable Results – Sola's Thoughts

Design thinking images: �What is Design Thinking? | IxDF

Song Exploder: �Song Exploder - Rick Astley and Song Exploder - Sleater-Kinney

Thank you to the Disseminar research group and our participants!

Full references at dtext.org/dbi

Slides from SlidesCarnival

32

33

34

Supporting Discourse-Based Interviews:�Developing a Methodological Resource�for Researchers & Students Using�Design Thinking

​

Can you help? → dtext.org/dbi

Concurrent Session 6A:�Designing and Developing Methods

EOLA 1, 1:15–2:15pm

​

• Baird & Dilger, “Supporting Discourse-Based Interviews...”
• Chen, Kong, & Dong, “Designing Crisis Crowdsourcing...”
• Melonçon, “Troubling the Method/ology of Participatory Design...”
• Zhou, “Cognitive Biases in Visual Storytelling”