32
Since there were many expressions in each kind of gambits, the writer made coding for the kinds of gambits. This coding helped the writer to analyze the
gambits were used by debaters was belonged to. The following part was the coding for kinds of gambits:
OG: Opening Gambits LG: Linking Gambits
RG: Responding Gambits After coding the data, the writer identified the gambits used in the
utterances by using table as follows:
Table 3.1. Table of Coding
Speaker Kinds of gambits
OG RG
LG GOV S1
OPP S1 GOV S2
3. Data Display
After doing data reduction, the writer displayed the data. The data were displayed
in a form of table. This table contained the debaters’ utterances and the identification of the gambits they used. Miles and Hubberman 1994 said that a
data display is designed to assembly organized information into a compact and accessible form so that the writer could see what is happening and could draw
33
conclusions. The complete data display was attached in appendix 2. The following part was the example of data display:
Table 3.2. Table of Data Display
Spea ker
Role Speech
Kinds of gambits OG
RG LG
GOV S1
Prime Minister
Social media has become one of daily basis needs in this era
because there are a
lot of function and a lot of feature, for
example , to express their opinion, their
feeling, or even sharing their photo, public … or anything else,
right? But,
we think in current status quo this
function has been shifting for trending of mocking and blast for certain individual
or certain marginalized group. And the
first favor my honor speaker,
we think
this is a very problematic point because why?
We think people that got,
you know
, mocked or even blast of me by certain people through social media and
report to the government as well, then
they give the evidence also
there will be investigation from the government
… -We think
-Then -The
problem is -First,
-Second, -You know
- Right - For
example - Because
- Why we think …?
- But -
That’s why
- Umm, - If
- Not only …, but …
- Also - Not
to mention,
4. Conclusion Drawing and Verification
The last step of analyzing the data was conclusion drawing and verification. In this step, the writer drew the final conclusion of the study. Also,
the writer confirmed the analyzed data to some participants and trainers as data PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
34
validation. The conclusions came after the writer analyzed the data and the result of the analysis had to be validated. Miles and Hubberman 1994 said that
conclusion drawing is only half configuration and it needs to be verified to find out the meanings emerging from the data including their plausibility, sturdiness,
and validity. While making the conclusion drawing, the writer contacted the debaters
from UGM to do verification. The verification was done on Friday, October 16
th
, 2015 in Faculty of Law area, Gadjah Mada University. The writer met up with the
debaters from UGM who became Opposition team in the first debate session. In this verification, they verified the gambits they used in debate and their purpose in
using them in their speeches. It was aimed to validate the conclusion and analysis the writer made and to find out other stories from the debaters.
Moreover, the writer did data validation with some debate trainers in Yogyakarta. This data validation was taken in some times those were on January
25
th
, 27
th
, and 30
th
, 2016. This step was taken to validate the conclusion and analysis that the writer had drawn and to have enlightenment in completing the
discussion. This step helped the writer to understand the use of conversation gambits in Englis
h debate activities from the trainers’ point of view.
F. Research Procedures
