PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 047
4 Reflection and limitations This chapter covers stage 5 of Bhaskar’s framework—which was discussed in chapter 2.1.2— and concerns a critical reflection on the analysis. I will firstly reflect on my research and discuss possible limitations to my research. Secondly, I will discuss how combining quantitative and qualitative analysis worked together for this specific study and in general. 4.1 Reflections and limitations In this study it was found that Google uses specific words that render themselves as agreeable and that shift the user’s focus to promising future possibilities instead of uncomfortable topics such as discrimination. However, there are some limitations to these findings. Firstly, the Google corpus that was put together for this study is relatively small. While more is not necessary better, it is also not the case that less is always more. It was difficult to find texts produced by Google that specifically discuss its algorithm or its search engine, which is the reason why the corpus is relatively small. Yet, performing this study’s analysis on a larger corpus of texts may lead to more substantiated findings. The use of words such as “unnatural” may now be coincidental and only have been used in a specific text. Secondly, a comparative analysis between the Google corpus and a reference corpus may give more insight in contemporary word use and similarities or disparities in Google’s corpus. Describing technology in words that allude to natural phenomena may, for instance, be not limited to Google’s discourse, but can be part of a discourse in which the Google discourse is embedded. While the findings of this study would in that case still hold (using ‘organic’ may render a technology more agreeable), it would be clearer whether such a discourse is constructed by Google, or whether it is part of a larger discourse—resulting in different questions of power and responsibility. Thirdly, the qualitative analysis may have been subject to confirmation bias. While I have attempted to prevent this as much as possible by performing both a qualitative and quantitative analysis, confirmation bias may nevertheless have crept into my analysis. I may too easily have ignored linguistic patterns and words that disagree with my hypotheses. Yet, by clearly describing the data that I have used, and the steps that I have taken in my analysis, other research can easily check whether they do or do not find the same. Using this specific methodology has proven productive. Performing a ‘normal’ reading of the text for the first time resulted in a different interpretation than using close reading to find linguistic patterns and words that may indicate rhetorics, assumptions, linguistic strategies etc. A surface reading would allow me to only read the explicit text, while close reading enabled me to look beneath the surface. In fact, it is exactly at the point where the explicit reading is in tension with implicit readings that discursive strategies become visible. 47PDF Image | peek into the discursive construction of the Google Search Algorithm: A critical discourse analysis
PDF Search Title:
peek into the discursive construction of the Google Search Algorithm: A critical discourse analysisOriginal File Name Searched:
thesis-google-search-algotithm.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
Cruise Ship Reviews | Luxury Resort | Jet | Yacht | and Travel Tech More Info
Cruising Review Topics and Articles More Info
Software based on Filemaker for the travel industry More Info
The Burgenstock Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
Resort Reviews: World Class resorts... More Info
The Riffelalp Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
| CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@cruisingreview.com | RSS | AMP |