Educational Programming

The title of the article is The Role of Television Viewing in the development of Reading Comprehension. The longitudinal research study looks at children's comprehension of television shows as compared to the aural reading of a story. The researchers cited past research that hypothesized television shows impair cognitive skills needed for comprehension. The past investigations have produced mix findings about the impact of television on children. The present research seeks to answer what effect does television have on pre-school students and their later achievement in reading comprehension. The study looked at 28 pre-school four year olds and 95 first grade students. Participants were asked to view a televised program and then they were asked to answer a series of comprehension questions. They also took a series of comprehension tests. The researchers found that children performed better on the television memory and comprehension than on the aural story and memory comprehension task. This article only presented preliminary results. All of the data was not yet collected when the article was written. Further analyses of the data would reveal the relationship between early literacy skills and comprehension and memory. After reading the article, I researched and found a follow-up article that will hopefully give me more definitive results. This article was discarded from the pile and was only used to gather more information.

Rereading with a Critical Eye

At this point in my research, I have read a significant number of articles and studies for my literature review-some good and some not so good. Also, when I get stuck in the writing process, distracted or just need a break, I look up more articles and studies to add to my collection. The paper piles on my dining room table have now extended to piles on the floor along the wall not to mention the piles on my kitchen table-too much information.

The study by Werts, Lambert & Carpenter (2009), What Special Education Directors Say About RTI, that I reread this week with a more critical eye, is a qualitative study using e-mail surveys. I think this was a good study overall with information clearly organized. The introduction gives a full background on the history of RTI and an operational definition of the topic in the first sentence. The authors state, “…the lack of consensus on many important issues related to RTI, we conducted a short online survey…” This was an effective alternative to writing “The purpose of this study…”

The research questions were well written to illicit the information needed from a survey. Tables in the study gave a graphic representation of the study. Table 1 included the survey questions and percentages of responses and table 2 gave the demographic information for the respondents and were added to the results section of the study.

The discussion section is clearly written with several interesting conclusions drawn from the data. Limitations of the study are discussed and include areas that I thought about as I was reading the research. Bias, survey return rate, self-selected representation were also discussed. Werts et al. (2009) found the validity a concern due to the nature of having the data collected through a survey format. The survey was only sent to one state, and the “…return rate of usable questionnaires was less than 50%.” Werts et al. (2009) also stated that the data was self-reported but because the questions asked for opinions, there was “less propensity for making themselves ‘look better’ because of practices they may or may not want to admit.” The authors also noted that since the state department officials trained the special education directors, this might have had an influence on the participants’ perception of the process.

Creswell (2007) discusses validation strategies and recommends that qualitative researchers use at least two of them in a given study (p. 207-209). This study included rich, thick descriptions, external audits and triangulation.

Under the Procedures section in this study, the questionnaire was developed through a systematic process of reviews. A team of volunteers consisting of professionals working and teaching in a university department included: a special education teacher, a principal, a special education director, two professors in special education, and an adjunct professor in the special education department. These volunteers reviewed the preliminary draft of the survey and were asked to suggest additional items, recommend deletion of items and make revisions in the wording of items that yielded a second survey that was then given back to the same team for feedback. A final draft was then written by the authors and used in this study (Werts et al., 2009).

Under the Data Analysis section, “analytical rigor was attained by having a third investigator independently review the tabular data and written responses. Any areas of ambiguity or disagreement were marked and discussed by the team until consensus was reached (Werts et al., 2009).

I thought this study added to the understanding of RTI from the perspective of a particular group (special education directors) in one state (North Carolina) and it would be interesting to compare these results with the results of another state like Connecticut.

Werts, M. G., Lambert, M. & Carpenter, E. (2009). What special education directors say about RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 245-254.

Critiquing a Study

Hale, A.D., Hawkins, R.O., Sheeley, W, Reynolds, J.R. Jenkins, S., Schmitt, S.J. & Martin, D.A. (2011). An investigation of silent versus aloud reading comprehension of elementary students using maze assessment procedures. Psychology in the Schools, (48)1, 4-13.

The purpose of the above study was to examine "the possible differences between silent and aloud reading comprehension scores on Maze assessment probes."  The participants were 89 first and second graders from general education classes at a private school in the southeast. The researchers used grade-level appropriate Aimsweb Maze passages to assess "aloud and silent Maze comprehension." (The Maze test consists of a complete first sentence, after which every seventh word is deleted. Students have to choose from three words given in parentheses and circle the correct answer.) To compare results, the authors also used grade-level appropriate DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) reading passages and norm-referenced passages from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. The assessments were conducted over a three-month period in the spring. The tests were given individually in a private room attached to the classroom and administered by "one primary investigator and five graduate students." The "primary investigator ensured that each graduate student could administer each assessment appropriately and score each assessment reliably." Each child read three passages silently and three orally within a period of five consecutive school days "to limit the possible effects from increased skill development." 
Results indicated that reading silently or orally did not affect the students' understanding of the tested material.
The authors mention that the "sample size was relatively small and came from a private school district." Therefore, "the generalizability of the results of this study are limited." They also state that most of the children were above grade-level readers.
I'm satisfied wtih the way this study was conducted. In my opinion, the authors come across as upfront and truthful. There was triangulation of sorts, in that there were several administrators, all of whom followed the same testing and scoring procedures. The tests were timed and needed right-or-wrong responses, so there was no room for subjectivity. There was "rich data," in that different assessments were used, and the oral reading was tape-recorded.  Finally, although Hale et al. place a limit on the overall  generalizability of the results, the study does seem to have internal generalizability, which Maxwell defines as "the generalizability of a conclusion within the setting or group studied" (p. 115).   

The Light bulb

After reading an article for another class, I was determined to enquire about the attitude and roles parents play in their young child's acquisition of language and literacy. Parents are their children's first teachers and I am on this quest to see how much parents believe it is their job to give children the tools needed for developing early literacy.

So, I am in the process of writing the literature review and the light bulb just went on this week. I have been fiddling with it for about three weeks now. In my research, I plan to look at 5 variables, which will be examined through a survey and interview. It was not until this week that I realized that I should use the five variables as categories to present the past research. When it hit me, I breathed a sigh of relief and now I think I know what I am doing --now just to polish it to submit for review.

Sometimes I wish the light bulb would turn on faster. You know when you walk into a place that has motion censors, the light flicks on and then when you leave, it goes off. Sometimes I feel like I am living in a motion censored world. When I am in one place, the light bulb goes on and as soon as I leave _____, the light flickers and then I am back to the craziness of this world; the mind simply goes blank. This only means that I need to write down everything. I used to be able to remember so much. I was a pro at taking mental notes. Now, if I don't write things down, I am sorry but, I am not going to remember. So the message I am taking away this week is to take notes and think in categories.

Interviewing Dad

Like Jeanne and her dad, I'd heard about my father's earlier years before. For our group's assignment, however, I hoped to delve more into his childhood. I'm not sure my father even had one. There's not one photograph of him as a boy, no artifacts, such as a report card or something he may have crafted--nothing. (He won a medal as a teenager, but I wanted something of him before then.) When we spoke, I tried directing my father's responses into light-hearted terrain--such as hobbies or sports. I learned a few new things then, that my father went out for track and was captain of his school's "honor guard." (I think this was in junior high, though.) But my father always returned to one central theme--that his family was poor, poor even before the Great Depression hit in 1929. He spoke about how he always scrambled to earn money to help his family, even at the ages of 7 or 8. My heart broke when my dad said that because my grandparents couldn't afford eyeglasses, he had to sit in the front row in class, where he was the tallest student. Those years were decidedly tough, but my father met every challenge that confronted him.  He went on to enjoy all that life has to offer--including 4 grandchildren and 5 great-grandchildren. Without question, interviewing Dad reminded me that I'm as proud of him as he deserves to be of himself, and I was glad to tell him so.

The Recorder

A recorder is a necessary tool in any interview. However, it can stop the interviewee from truly getting comfortable. I learned this recently as I was interviewing my dad. As always, he was ready to talk until I told him he was going to be recorded. I assured him that no one was going to listen to it accept me and he still had a hard time getting started with the essential question: How has your upbringing shaped who you are?

My father enjoys talking about the old days.

None of the stories I heard growing up were discussed during the interview. He was quiet at first. I had to use probing questions to get him to talk some more. I also had to phrase the question in another way to make him start thinking about his career and his life now. It was funny that with the recorder he felt like he needed to be cautious. How will others respond to a voice recorder?
...........................................................................................................................
Throughout the interview, my dad kept coming back to a central theme, observation. He said that he was an observer. He believes that growing up, his observation of people around him, shaped who is today.

My dad is a chef and usually everything revolves around food and when he was younger, he did not have to cook. His older sisters and mother cooked for him. However, he was watching and asking questions. It was not until he was 19, that he started to take some real interest in cooking. Through observing chefs in the kitchen, he developed his talents.

...............................................................................................................................
I asked my dad what was so difficult about having the recorder on the table and he said that he felt like he was under scrutiny. This is interesting and important to think about. He suggested that I start off with a simple, easy going conversation before I dig into the interview. This is to make the interviewee comfortable with the recorder and the process.

The Apple Doesn't Fall Far...

So this week’s assignment to interview a willing participant was so interesting. Our “think tank” group decided that we would all interview our fathers. We agreed that they would be easily accessible and happy to talk with their daughters for this class project. We agreed on the central question: How did your childhood influence your life? Follow up questions included (1) How did your childhood lead you to your career? (2) How did your childhood affect your adult life?

When I told my Dad about this project he was happy to chat with me and although, over the years, I had heard his childhood memories, interesting antidotes, and funny stories, it was always in a social context and never formal or recorded. Since our schedules did not allow for us to interview in person, we decided on an audio-recorded phone interview. It was easy to imagine his facial expressions, hand gestures and smile as he was talking.

A few specific themes surfaced during the interview regarding his childhood, but no matter what direction the interview took, his stories always came back to food. Yes, the hardships of the Great Depression, the family work ethic, counted blessings, money, religion, problems, love and music were all discussed but most of the conversation circled back to food-lots of food, not enough food, who was cooking the food, good cooks in the family, Sunday food, preparing food, cooking food, Italian food, courses of food, etc.

I never realized how much my family talks about food. It is one of my favorite topics to discuss and is also a popular theme with the rest of my family, children and friends.

This assignment was a great way to practice our interviewing procedures and skills in my opinion. The experience was low stress and could be forgiving in the event of a possible question or technology glitch. There is definitely an “art” to the interviewing process that I am hoping to get much better at with more practice.

Structure

All of my life, I was accustomed to structure. I did what I was told and never questioned anything. I followed the norms of the environments I entered on a daily basis. Now, the structure that others have put in place for me to follow are no longer the structures that I am following. I am making my own plans of action.

Take for instance papers, through my years as an undergraduate and a graduate student, papers were assigned and they were written according to the structure the teacher supplied. The professors gave me a road map and it was followed. Now, the road map is self designed. So coming up with a question and a design for the research did not seem so straight forward for me because I was accustomed to the structure already being designed for me in the past.

As I am stepping into a new future both professionally and academically, I am learning a lot about myself. I am finding that I have a voice in this world as I was raised under the teaching of "speak when spoken to" and now I find that I have a little more to say. However, I still hold some of the same beliefs about talking as I think it is important to only speak once you have given thought to your comment or question. The process of thinking is what is making the research project a little troublesome for me as I keep trying to imagine the process. Is it wrong to try to think ahead? Will my thoughts make me trip and fall?

I have watched my little nephew plan his next attack. He stands in front of the television, looking intently at the screen. Well, at least I believe that is what he is doing. Then, he bends down and starts pushing buttons. He shuts the television off and then after a few seconds, he turns it back on. On Friday, he pushed the power off and then on again. Then, he kept pressing buttons until black and white squiggly lines filled the screen. After some time, I asked my dad to turn off the television and he did. My nephew did not agree and so he turned it back on...Now, the volume was down to 0 and it was on channel 85. He sat there and played with the buttons until the television was on the correct channel to receive signal from the cable box and the volume was up. When he was finished, he walked away. He accomplished his goal. Now I have no clue what this 20 month old boy was thinking. All I know is that he made sure that the television was showing clearly before he walked away. What his initial goal was, I still don't know?

But I do know that he is teaching me to take some chances.

A Participant's Observation

Over the Presidents Week/"Spring" break, I arrived at JFK for a trip to join my family for several days. It had been nearly one year since my last visit to the airport, and I noticed a change almost immediately. For example, at the the curb-side check-in area, the airline no longer accepts cash to give to the baggage handlers; only a credit card or a check for the $2 fee will do. Since there's no charge for indoor counter service, I opted for that because it seemed simpler.
I observed my fellow travelers at the Security section. It's interesting, in a sad way, how everyone knew the drill: shoes off, all items in the plastic bins, and setting the containers onto a conveyer belt--all done as quickly as possible. I was told by my relatives ahead of time that, despite media reports about body checks and scanning, they experienced no changes or problems. Still, I was a bit apprehensive; I was once pulled aside because something innocuous looked suspicious on an x-ray machine. A girl in front of me had to walk through the body scanner machine twice because she beeped. Thankfully, I passed through this portion of my journey uneventfully. I asked a TSA agent if I could put away my ID (it's just too easy to lose) and he said yes without hesitation. I tucked it in my packed handbag.
As I passed through the gate and into the passageway leading to the aircraft, two TSA agents were stationed there. A tall male said nothing as I walked by, but his female colleague asked for my ID. As I searched for my drivers license, I said that another agent assured me I wouldn't need to show it again, so why the request now (after I'd already handed in my boarding pass?) She said, almost gleefully, that it was "random." I found that as unsettling as it was annoying: Was it really random? Does a woman traveling alone seem suspicious somehow? With my handbag stuffed to the gills, I just couldn't locate my ID. I said that I had it earlier (obviously). She said, "Hmm, getting through security without ID, that's pretty serious." I envisioned missing my flight and upsetting my family who were waiting at my destination's airport. Ultimately, though, I found my license and all was resolved. After I landed and opened my suitcase, however, I saw a printed notice from TSA, informing me that my suitcase had been checked, randomly. While I'm glad I arrived safely and enjoyed my visit, based on this experience, I think there's a lot to be said for "staycations." 

Research Focus

Deciding on the focus of research is not so easy. I have experienced the anxiety involved in choosing what I deem to be a great research question. I come up with some and then I think about the access and then I have to toss then. They cannot be done within the time frame or within my current setting(s).



So, I am left where I first began.



This was the story of my week as I was trying to work on two research questions. My mind was plagued with thoughts of access and finally, the questions became real... things I would have access to observe. My mind was at peace for I had a clearer vision of the participants in mind for my research projects.



As I started thinking about the questions, I wanted them to sound right. I felt like this little boy in a school who just wants to spell every word on his page correctly and not make a mistake. I was worried about the what, the when, the why, the where, and the who of it all. So the process took longer as I played around with a couple of scenarios in my head. I needed to know what they would sound and look like and so I sat and thought and thought and said no many times before I found the ones.



So, one morning I set out to start my observation and I felt weird people watching. All I was doing was taking a count of the people who entered the train using electronic devices. My observation did not involve me frantically writing down notes about the behaviors of the participants. My behavior made me think about the other research question. I finally found a question that I think is going to be worth researching and it is all due to my little nephew and his acquisition of language. I have chosen to do a narrative research so that I can write about this phenomena and reflect about changes in parents' knowledge on helping their children to access early literacy through various activities. This research focus will allow me to work within my zone of proximal development.

Observation, love?

On holiday this week in London visiting my daughter and having a go at the sample observation assignment. Reading and taking lots of field notes (I feel a bit like Harriet from the children's book Harriet the Spy by Louise Fitshugh), I now just need to focus and write up one observation. There have been so many interesting situations to choose from being in a different city. Not sure if it is that I have actually had the time to sit and watch the people around me or that maybe this week I am starting to "see" through the lens of a researcher. The culture has also been very interesting as both a participant observer and direct observer.

Last time I was here, I was politely corrected by a well meaning English gentleman who thought I was too direct in my response to his question. After informing him I was from New York, he gave me a few pointers to make sure I understood the proper way to converse while I was visiting. I took his good advice and continued to remember the adage "When in Rome..." This also reminded me of the reading regarding entering a site as researcher, field issues and the interview process.

The I's have it...

In Search of Subjectivity-One’s Own, Peshkin (1988) discusses the value of researchers systematically seeking out their own subjectivity while their research is actively in progress, not retrospectively.

As a beginning qualitative researcher, Peshkin’s message was both enlightening and also the cause of some angst. This week, while I was processing and reflecting on this article, I became acutely aware of (and amazed by) how many times I heard the personal pronoun “I”. Of course, everyone, is speaking through his or her unique lens from the political arena, educational and social media to everyday conversations where people communicate from the lens of their personal life experiences, whether giving an opinion, stating what they believe is a fact, or offering advice.

Thinking about my own “I’s”, the mother “I” and the teacher “I” are difficult to separate. Both roles are nurturing, caring and ultimately wanting to do what is best for children. I always wanted to be a teacher and had some wonderful teachers growing up (both inside and outside the classroom) and unfortunately, other teachers, that even as a young child, knew that when I grew up, I would teach differently. As a teacher and a mother, the “I” wants my own children and the children I work with to have the best education (academic, social and emotional), to become life long learners and to be all that they can be. The optimistic “I” sees things in a hopeful and positive way. I know that being aware of this tendency and mindful of my own subjectivity will be important when listening, observing and collecting data in my own research.

I am not sure if this “I” would be considered a cultural “I” or a creative “I” but yesterday a short phone conversation turned into an “aha moment” for me. A couple of days ago, my daughter asked me for the recipe of her very favorite soup so she could make a home-made dinner for her roommates. Because I have been making this soup (from memory) for years now, I wanted to make sure that I gave her the original recipe (since it tends to taste a little different every time I make it). Since my good friend had borrowed my Williams Sonoma Soup Cookbook some months ago, I called her to get the exact recipe. As she proceeded to read me the list of ingredients, I actually stopped her after each one to say, “but I think it is better with more of this, I use less of that and I always forget to use…” We both started to laugh because she was reading me the original, published, right there on the page recipe but as I was writing down the information, I was imposing my own opinion and prior cooking knowledge to the situation. I know this light-hearted conversation was just about soup, but it caused me to stop, midway through the conversation, to think about the implications in the context of research. If researches are not cognizant of their subjectivity and their personal experiences, data could reflect the researchers subjectivity and bias. While this example is innocuous in cooking, it is serious in research and could cause results to be reported from the researchers point of view instead of the participant’s view. Peshkin (1988) advocates for “the enhanced awareness that should result from a formal, systematic monitoring of self” (p. 20). He explains that this keeps the lines of his subjectivity open and straight to avoid presenting data as autobiographical.

The I's Have Spoken

Separating the "I's" in my life are not so easy. After all, it is the lens with which I view everything around me and it is with these views that the world makes sense. However, it is with these same lenses my thoughts are subjected to only see through a narrowed tunnel.


Recently, I started thinking about tunnel vision and how it inhibits an educator's ability to progress from one school of thought to another. In this light, educators become complacent within their comfort zones and see education through a narrowed view. I never thought about my own tunnel vision as I believed that I was far removed from it all. This was until sitting down and truly self examining my motives and thought processes. My views are subjected to my past experiences.


The experential I is one of the I's I have recently identified. It clouds my judgement and causes me to limitly see my path as I connect to those who have similar experiences. For instance, I make connections to people who have gone through similar education experiences and to those who may have had similar upbringings. I identify with them because I can relate to their lives.


The experential I is not a simple I, for it is broken down into sub-groups. The sub-groups are cultural identity, religion affliation and community. They all live under the umbrella of experential as I am digging deeper into people's lives once I know that there is some kind of bond. My lens gets focused on a group rather than the whole and I miss out on the bigger picture becuase I have narrowed my focus.


It is through the initial identification and its continuance that the veil will be lifted to see not only through the specific lens, but to dig deeper into the lives of people who do not have the same experiences as I do.

What are my I's?

In his article "In Search of Subjectivity--One's Own," Peshkin (1988) describes aspects of himself that collectively account for his subjectivity--"the quality of an investigator that affects the results of observational investigation" (p. 17). Peshkin believes that although researchers aim for neutrality in their studies, bias may sometimes creep in regardless. He suggests that anyone pursuing investigative studies might therefore benefit from contemplating their own subjective areas--what he calls the "I's." The following are mine.  

The Ethnic-Maintenance I tops my list. My religion is very important to me and significantly shapes how I live my life.

I also relate to the Justice-Seeking I. I connect this category to the work I've done as a teacher. I consider myself an advocate for my students, especially when no one else fights for them, not even their parents. I've argued for advancing children to the next grade (one of whom ultimately scored the highest in his class on ELA and Math state exams). I've also helped ensure that certain at-risk students receive extra time for high-stakes testing.

I've experienced the Pedagogical-Meliorist I while working as a Title I teacher at a public school. Instead of hiring substitutes, the principal used me and other support staff to cover classes. While it's often interesting to work with other children and challenging to see if I can carry a class (often pre-K--where no instruction was permitted--and a high-functioning 4th grade class) on the fly, it meant that my struggling students, for whom my salary was targeted, wouldn't receive service. These missed sessions really added up, and although my students improved, they could have progressed even further with more consistent help. I'd learned that this practice is fairly widespread throughout the DOE and  I suspect this is why the Title I program has historically not made the gains it might have. I ultimately resigned my position and reported these misused funds to the State Education Department.

The E-Pluribus-Unum I is evident in Jonathan Kozol's book, The Shame of the Nation, in which he states that schools in the U.S. are as segregated now as they were before 1968. This is true even in Manhattan, one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world. What's also troubling is an obvious lack of resources in the more northern schools. When it comes to supplies, for example, teachers in Central Harlem will likely have more out-of-pocket expenses than teachers working on the East Side.

If any of these personal views or experiences found their way into my investigative projects, I'm not sure I'd consider it a drawback. For example, I recognize and respect people's differences, given my own. And were I to conduct a study about at-risk children, I'd search for any unjust treatment that may have hindered their achievement. In the event any flagrant subjectivity did enter my report, however, I suppose a peer-review committee would alert me.

Truth is...subjective?

During our class assignment last week about truth, I wrote very little on the subject. My few sentences reflected that, in my opinion, truth is fact based on time-proven research and study.  Kristen later mentioned that "to get truth, we need more than one perspective." That made perfect sense and also seemed consistent with my view.
    Today I looked through a book by Michael Pressley--Reading Instruction That Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching (2006). He's a well-regarded researcher on the subject and this text is a great read--very thorough and very well-written. Judging from his references, Pressley must have consulted every article and study on literacy. I flagged numerous pages as potential wall coverings--they all seemed so important and insightful. Then I came to the topic of Vocabulary. Pressley states early on that there's "considerable doubt" that "increasing a reader's vocabulary will improve his or her comprehension very much." Continuing, he  writes that the connection between vocabulary knowledge and comprehension has more to do with "general intelligence" (p. 220).
    I thought there'd be a "gotcha, only kidding" immediately afterward, but no. I must have read the section three or four times, certain at that point that my eyes had failed me. But there it was, a position from a known expert in the field that contradicted everything I'd read last year for two (research-based) papers. It's astounding, and to say I'm unconvinced is putting it mildly. I know what I think is true, and I'll stay with my belief.

Truth and/or Point of View

Since our first class and discussion on truth, my quick write on this topic revealed that I had a pragmatic worldview-the focus on research outcomes. At first I was surprised since I thought my writing would have fallen under social constructivism or maybe the advocacy/participatory researchers’ view. As I reread this section in Creswell (2007), it occurred to me that I would definitely feel comfortable using multiple methods of data collection in my own research. I also connected with the other beliefs of pragmatism that Creswell (2007) outlined and discussed where he states that this approach offers the freedom of choice for individual researchers to choose the methods, techniques, and procedures to meet their purposes and needs.

As I thought more about the topic of truth, a vivid childhood memory surfaced of my mother explaining the concept of Rashomon after a beautiful vase ended up on the floor broken in pieces as my sister and I played a little too closely to the china cabinet. After two dramatic and Oscar worthy performances from my sister and me on the fate of the vase, we were shocked that we each had different views about how that vase ended up broken. We were both there when the vase crashed to the floor but we were each telling a different “truth” from our own point of view.

(Rashomon, a film by Kurosawa, is the story of four people that witness a crime and proceed to describe what they saw from four different viewpoints.)

FYI-connecting back to qualitative research, I came across this interesting article-

Heider, K. G. (1988). The rashomon effect: When ethnographers disagree. American

Anthropologist, 90(1), 73-81. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198103757?accountid=10932


Ethnographers rarely disagree with each other's interpretations of a culture, and when disagreements do arise they are usually handled by discreet avoidance or confused partisanship.