“What’s going on here?” The pedagogy of a data analysis session

Data analysis sessions are a common feature of discourse analytic communities, often involving participants with varying levels of expertise to those with significant expertise. Learning how to do data analysis and working with transcripts, however, are often new experiences for doctoral candidates within the social sciences. While many guides to doctoral education focus on procedures associated with data analysis (Heath, Hindmarsh, & Luff, 2010; McHoul & Rapley, 2001; Silverman, 2011; Wetherall, Taylor, & Yates, 2001), the in situ practices of doing data analysis are relatively undocumented. This chapter has been collaboratively written by members of a special interest research group, the Transcript Analysis Group (TAG), who meet regularly to examine transcripts representing audio- and video-recorded interactional data. Here, we investigate our own actual interactional practices and participation in this group where each member is both analyst and participant. We particularly focus on the pedagogic practices enacted in the group through investigating how members engage in the scholarly practice of data analysis. A key feature of talk within the data sessions is that members work collaboratively to identify and discuss ‘noticings’ from the audio-recorded and transcribed talk being examined, produce candidate analytic observations based on these discussions, and evaluate these observations. Our investigation of how talk constructs social practices in these sessions shows that participants move fluidly between actions that demonstrate pedagogic practices and expertise. Within any one session, members can display their expertise as analysts and, at the same time, display that they have gained an understanding that they did not have before. We take an ethnomethodological position that asks, ‘what’s going on here?’ in the data analysis session. By observing the in situ practices in fine-grained detail, we show how members participate in the data analysis sessions and make sense of a transcript.

Are low CO2 emitters in rural areas also socially excluded? An empirical investigation of travel diary data from rural Northern Ireland

The reduction of CO2 emissions and social exclusion are two key elements of UK transport strategy. Despite intensive research on each theme, little effort has so far been made linking the relationship between emissions and social exclusion. In addition, current knowledge on each theme is limited to urban areas; little research is available on these themes for rural areas. This research contributes to this gap in the literature by analysing 157 weekly activity-travel diary data collected from three case study areas with differential levels of area accessibility and area mobility options, located in rural Northern Ireland. Individual weekly CO2 emission levels from personal travel diaries (both hot exhaust emission and cold-start emission) were calculated using average speed models for different modes of transport. The socio-spatial patterns associated with CO2 emissions were identified using a general linear model whereas binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify mode choice behaviour and activity patterns. This research found groups that emitted a significantly lower level of CO2 included individuals living in an area with a higher level of accessibility and mobility, non-car, non-working, and low-income older people. However, evidence in this research also shows that although certain groups (e.g. those working, and residing in an area with a lower level of accessibility) emitted higher levels of CO2, their rate of participation in activities was however found to be significantly lower compared to their counterparts. Based on the study findings, this research highlights the need for both soft (e.g. teleworking) and physical (e.g. accessibility planning) policy measures in rural areas in order to meet government’s stated CO2 reduction targets while at the same time enhancing social inclusion.

Evaluating the benefits of public bicycle schemes needs to be undertaken carefully

A letter in response to an article by David Rojas-Rueda, Audrey de Nazelle, Marko Tainio, Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen, The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. BMJ 2011;343:doi:10.1136/bmj.d4521 (Published 4 August 2011) This paper sets out to compare the health benefits of the Bicing scheme (Barcelona's public bicycle share scheme) with possible risks associated with increased bicycle riding. The key variables used by the researchers include physical activity, exposure to air pollution and road traffic injury. The authors rightly identify that although traffic congestion is often a major motivator behind the establishment of public bicycle share schemes (PBSS), the health benefits may well be the largest single benefit of such schemes. Certainly PBSS appear to be one of the most effective methods of increasing the number of bicycle trips across a population, providing additional transport options and improving awareness of the possibilities bicycles offer urban transport systems. Overall, the paper is a useful addition to the literature, in that it has attempted to assess the health benefits of a large scale PBSS and weighed these against potential risks related to cyclists exposure to air pollution and road traffic injuries. Unfortunately a fundamentally flawed assumption related to the proportion of Bicing trips replacing car journeys invalidates the results of this paper. A future paper with up to date data would create a significant contribution to this emerging area within the field of sustainable transport.

Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Background Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression.

On the data consumption benefits of accepting increased uncertainty

In the context of learning paradigms of identification in the limit, we address the question: why is uncertainty sometimes desirable? We use mind change bounds on the output hypotheses as a measure of uncertainty and interpret ‘desirable’ as reduction in data memorization, also defined in terms of mind change bounds. The resulting model is closely related to iterative learning with bounded mind change complexity, but the dual use of mind change bounds — for hypotheses and for data — is a key distinctive feature of our approach. We show that situations exist where the more mind changes the learner is willing to accept, the less the amount of data it needs to remember in order to converge to the correct hypothesis. We also investigate relationships between our model and learning from good examples, set-driven, monotonic and strong-monotonic learners, as well as class-comprising versus class-preserving learnability.