CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter explains how the research is conducted from the beginning to
the end. The explanation of design of research is presented in order to see how the
research problems and the way to interpret it are matched. The data collection
follows the explanation of research design is presented to see that data source and
the way to gain the data are appropriate as it is related to the focus of this study. In
the end, step by step analysis is presented to see how the data are interpreted.
3.1Statement of the problems
The use of hedging in academic writing is considerably important. In
presenting factuality and truthfulness of statement, the use of hedging is beneficial
in that the statement becomes not too assertive and judgmental (Markannen and
Schroder, 1997). The study about hedging in academic writing across disciplines
is already done by many researchers. The result shows significant difference of
the use of hedging in different disciplines (Vartalla, 2001). From such condition,
there are still some problems that need depicting, in terms of the use of hedging in
undergraduate. This study qualitatively leads to the realization whether hedging as
rhetorical device is acquired naturally or whether level of education determines
the advance of the rhetorical devices use. In short, this study tries to decipher
hedging uses occurring in skripsi-s employing qualitative and quantitative
research methods in terms of the surface features and polypragmatic models of
hedging.
3.2Research Design
To explore the above research problem, the present study employs
qualitative research method. Qualitative research is the appropriate research
method dominantly used for this study because the explanation of this study
hedging in academic writing. Creswell (2011) believes qualitative research is the
suitable research method for exploration of variables and problems that has been
clearly revealed.
One of qualitative research method characteristics is exploring a problem
and developing a detailed understanding of a central phenomenon (Creswell,
2011). This is in line with what Sinclair (2004) suggests trusting the text, in
discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is employed in this study as one type of
qualitative research methods. Jorgensen and Phillips (2002) believes that
discourse analysis can be used not only as theory in interpreting the text but also
in doing the procedure of analysis of text. Dealing with this, Conrad (2002; in
Charles, Maggie et al, 2009) provides an overview of approaches that can be used
to examine discourse phenomena and distinguishes four types: (1) studies which
examine a feature of language in use; (2) studies of the realizations of a function
of language; (3) studies of a variety of language and (4) studies that trace the
occurrence of a linguistic feature throughout a text.
By characteristics above, exploration of hedging as (meta)discourse
phenomenon can be included in qualitative research. Qualitative research design
can reveal the unsuspected patterns of language through examining the nature and
structure of language of large collection of text (Sinclair, 2003 and 2004).
To support qualitative research, the use of hedging in skripsi-s was
depicted comprehensively in statistical display. This study is followed by
discursive analysis derived from discourse analysis above in form of narrow scope
of survey. Quantitative analysis in survey design by showing descriptive analysis
helps us to scan an issue in order to generalize certain features (Cohen, Manion
and Morrison, 2007).
3.3Data Source
In order to cope with the purposes of this research, the data that match for
this study are those digital copy of skripsi-s of English education major students’.
There are four skripsi-s selected in this study to analyse, namely, four
employing quantitative research method and two skripsi-s employing qualitative
research method.
Because this study tries to figure out the contrast of the use of hedging in
skripsi-s employing quantitative and qualitative research method, this study used
purposive sampling. In purposive sampling, the case included in the sample is the
basis of judgment of typicality or possession of the particular characteristics being
sought (Cohen et al, 2006). The data are taken due to the availability of this
research procedure that needs digital copy of skripsi-s in the same major of study.
The same university in similar management is advantageous as well, in terms of
internal validity, in that the environment and management are almost equal in
certain conditions. Therefore, this study has two female undergraduate with
qualitative skripsi and two female undergraduate with quantitative skripsi. The
[image:3.596.107.517.422.511.2]following table illustrates the research participants involved in this study.
Table 3.1 Data sources of this study
Variables 2011 2010
Quantitative 1 1
Qualitative 1 1
Total 2 2
The text for research data were taken from skripsi-s of the undergraduate
students from the same major. However not all the contents of the reserach are
analyzed due to time constraints of the participants. Therefore, this study takes
chapter IV (result and discussion sections) in similar proportion out of each
skripsi-s. This effort is done in order to retain the naturality of reserach findings,
bacause naturality is what qualitative study tries to hold (Alwasilah, 2008).
3.4Data Collection
There are two major data collected in this study. The first is the collection
of quantitative data, portrayed in descriptive statistics. The second is qualitative
use of hedging in academic writing and from interview to support the
interpretation.
Quantitative data were taken from the text selected as mentioned in data
source section. However, the statistical counts are possible by counting the
occurrences of words identified by Vartalla (2001) as potentially generating
hedging (see appendices). This involves two main processes, namely, the
collection of the texts and the computerization of the texts (Meyer, 2002). First,
collection of the texts are taken manually from digital text from each participant
permission. They are usually in .doc/x format. Thus, there are 4 skripsi-s selected
in the qualification mentioned before (cf. § 3.3). Computerization of the text are
done: 1) by converting files in .doc/x format into .txt format. Antcont was used as
software to analyze occurrence of hedging based on word per word identification.
The categorization using this software makes the mapping of words use in text
easier.
Qualitative data were from the text (in clausal unit) to interpret according
to theoretical framework of hedging. This is for the sake of superficial statistical
description and in-depth understanding of phenomenon observed. The second
stage of data collection of this study is to get further information about the data
that are colleted in the first stage. Namely, the researcher himself who analyzed
the text based on the nature of hedging, in case there are implicitly stated
expressions of hedging uses out of Vartalla’s categorization. Another instrument to support the second stage data collection was also provided, namely, interview.
The interview was addressed to the authors of the skripsi-s. The interview
contains questions about hedging in the authors’ skripsi-s. It tries to reveal how
they acquire the ability to use hedging; why they used hedging and the hedging in
their academic world. This interview is used in this study to support findings of
interpretation on hedging used in skripsi-s based on Hyland’s and Vartalla’s
3.5Data Analysis
There are two parts of data analysis in this study. The first part is to
answer the first research question, namely, to find out distributional information
of hedging uses in skripsi-s employing quantitative and qualitative research
method. The first part of data analysis involves a careful investigation into the
hedging markers used in the aforementioned data inspired from Hyland (1997),
Vartalla (2011), and Taweel, Saidat, Hussein and Saidat (2011). There are four
steps of the first part of the data analysis. The first step is identifying the hedging
markers (see appendices for hedging markers based on Vartalla’s identification) in
the chosen skripsi-s in order to extract all words potentially showing hedging
based on tokens identified as hedging by Vartalla. This step requires Antcone
Software to search effectively for how particular words used. The second step is
classifying the result of the first step based on theories proposed by Hyland (1997)
and Vartalla (2001), that all expressions potentially containing hedging are
classified into eight categories: modal auxiliaries, full verbs, adverbs,
adjectives, nouns, clausal element, questions and other hedges. The third is interpreting the effect of the statement containing hedging especially hedging
influence that modifies factuality. The third step is useful in determining whether
an expression is hedged or not. The following matrix is made to display the data
Table 3.2 Table to display expressions containing hedging potential
No Statement Hedging
Category Explanation
1
After conducting
investigation, the writer identifies that in
“AUSTRALIA” film, there
are total 44 slang words, 27 slang idioms in 80
dialogues,…
Non-factive Reporting Verb
seen as tentative devices useful in constructing reports of research by other scholars or in tentatively describing the
authors’ own work.
2
…some slang words are repeated several times in the whole script,…
Approximative adjective
commonly used to manipulate precision in quantification.
3 Colorful sayings which are (fairly) self-explanatory
Adverbs-indefinite degree
“seek to express only
part of the potential force
of the item concerned”
thus make it possible to
render one’s statements
less than absolute.
4. … … …
Table 3.2 shows 4 columns: number, statement, hedging category and
explanation. Column number can be seen as frequency of expression occurred as
hedging. The second column is column statement, that is, the clauses that contain
hedging uses. Column hedging category in the third column display hedging
category based on Hyland’s (1997) and Vartalla’s (2001) theory for clauses in column statement. Items in the second column are explained in the fourth column
that clarifies the inclusion of items in second column included in certain hedging
category.
The fourth step is quantification of the qualitative data above into counts
and percentage of each of lexical and syntactic markers based on the occurrence
of words regarded as hedges. The frequency of hedging is identified based on the
amount of words found per 1000 words. The following table is sample to display
Table 3.3 The example of table for fourth step
Modal Auxiliaries ST RS TT WD Sub-Total
Might 0 0 0,27 0,39 0,66
Will 0 0 0,54 0 0,54
Total 3 0 9,42 4,64 17,06
Table 3.3 displays the frequency of hedging uses in every hedging category based
on their surface feature. Column modal auxiliary shows items subcategory or
items of the hedging category. ST, RS, TT and WD are initial name of the writers
of skripsi-s. Columns for each initial name represent individual hedging uses.
The quantification of this hedging uses is made for displaying
distributional information of how hedging are used in skripsi-s employing
quantitative and qualitative research methods. The final result of this
quantification is to find out the comparison of hedging uses in the form of ratio or
the percentage of the difference of quantitative and qualitative skripsi-s.
The second stage is analyzing the basic pragmatic functions of lexical and
syntactic hedges as used contextually in the data are interpreted by some
theoretical concept of hedging, based on the data analysis steps in Table 3.2. This
builds a logical chain of evidence, noting causality and making inferences.
For answering the second research question, namely, to interpret and
clarify how hedges are used in undergraduate students’ academic writing (skripsi
-s), the framework from Hyland’s (1995, 1996 and 1997) is used. The categorization of how hedging function are created are done by discerning
identification displayed in Table 3.2. Those occurrences of hedging from
superficial features are interpreted further, discerning their effects to content,
writer and readers. In research writing, the explanation of those three is inevitable
because hedging is regarded as polypragmatic phenomenon (Hyland, 1995, 1996,
1997; and Vartalla, 2001).
For more reliable interpretation of this study, interview with the authors of
skripsi-s were conducted. This interview was used as qualitative data to support
the interpretation of data that generates assumption. This is in line with Cohen,
develop hypothesis. Therefore, interview to explore the possibility of
interpretation and enhance the interpretation is necessary in this study. in
conclusion, this stage of data analysis is making conceptual/theoretical coherence:
moving from identifications and categorization, to theories to explain the
