Comments on: Embracing the Un-Science of Qualitative Research Part Three – Improvising is Excellent http://www.disambiguity.com/embracing-the-un-science-of-qualitative-research-part-three-improvising-is-excellent/ pretty design pending Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:30:46 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: JC http://www.disambiguity.com/embracing-the-un-science-of-qualitative-research-part-three-improvising-is-excellent/comment-page-1/#comment-248127 JC Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:52:27 +0000 http://www.disambiguity.com/embracing-the-un-science-of-qualitative-research-part-three-improvising-is-excellent/#comment-248127 Very well said, Leisa. Talking about interviews and getting the best out of interviewees, in Part 3 of the IELTS speaking examination, the trickiest part for examiners is to ask candidates follow-up questions that brings the conversation down (or up) to a level indicative of the candidate's best performance. Converting a script into a guide that would serve as a script for a future guide as well requires a certain open-mindedness and flexibility. Very well said, Leisa. Talking about interviews and getting the best out of interviewees, in Part 3 of the IELTS speaking examination, the trickiest part for examiners is to ask candidates follow-up questions that brings the conversation down (or up) to a level indicative of the candidate’s best performance. Converting a script into a guide that would serve as a script for a future guide as well requires a certain open-mindedness and flexibility.

]]> By: Commentstorming Australia at On Blogging Australia http://www.disambiguity.com/embracing-the-un-science-of-qualitative-research-part-three-improvising-is-excellent/comment-page-1/#comment-31276 Commentstorming Australia at On Blogging Australia Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:11:43 +0000 http://www.disambiguity.com/embracing-the-un-science-of-qualitative-research-part-three-improvising-is-excellent/#comment-31276 [...] Leisa Reichelt’s Disambiguity and left a comment on her qualitative  research article, [...] [...] Leisa Reichelt’s Disambiguity and left a comment on her qualitative  research article, [...]

]]> By: Christopher Fahey http://www.disambiguity.com/embracing-the-un-science-of-qualitative-research-part-three-improvising-is-excellent/comment-page-1/#comment-29058 Christopher Fahey Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:11:08 +0000 http://www.disambiguity.com/embracing-the-un-science-of-qualitative-research-part-three-improvising-is-excellent/#comment-29058 Another approach to making qualitative analysis more scientific is to insert quantitative evaluations somewhere in the process. That is, to transform subjective expert observations into numbers as soon as possible, and to then conduct the remainder of the research/analysis on the numbers. This is frighteningly common, and while I never formally studied research and science methodologies, it strikes me as fundamentally flawed. As a (made up) example, imagine those research reports that come out every now and then which compares, say, the amount of "hard news" versus "soft news" on TV. The analyst will watch one night of TV news, and rate the "hardness" of each story from, say, 1 to 10. They will then average them out by TV channel/network or by program/show, transforming the numbers in such a way that all of the top-level results of the study are expressed in pure, scientific-sounding numbers: "73% of all news on Channel X is soft news" or "News programs contain only 14% of the hard news they contained 10 years ago". This is what I was complaining about in <a href="http://www.graphpaper.com/2006/07-14_user-research-smoke-mirrors-part-4-research-as-bullshit" rel="nofollow">a post last year criticizing Forresters</a> for "Magically Transforming the Subjective into the Objective". Is this a common technique in our field? Another approach to making qualitative analysis more scientific is to insert quantitative evaluations somewhere in the process. That is, to transform subjective expert observations into numbers as soon as possible, and to then conduct the remainder of the research/analysis on the numbers.

This is frighteningly common, and while I never formally studied research and science methodologies, it strikes me as fundamentally flawed.

As a (made up) example, imagine those research reports that come out every now and then which compares, say, the amount of “hard news” versus “soft news” on TV. The analyst will watch one night of TV news, and rate the “hardness” of each story from, say, 1 to 10. They will then average them out by TV channel/network or by program/show, transforming the numbers in such a way that all of the top-level results of the study are expressed in pure, scientific-sounding numbers: “73% of all news on Channel X is soft news” or “News programs contain only 14% of the hard news they contained 10 years ago”.

This is what I was complaining about in a post last year criticizing Forresters for “Magically Transforming the Subjective into the Objective”.

Is this a common technique in our field?

]]> By: Steve Portigal http://www.disambiguity.com/embracing-the-un-science-of-qualitative-research-part-three-improvising-is-excellent/comment-page-1/#comment-28828 Steve Portigal Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:15:29 +0000 http://www.disambiguity.com/embracing-the-un-science-of-qualitative-research-part-three-improvising-is-excellent/#comment-28828 Definitely look forward to the discussion of questions. That's a BIG interest of mine; I've been lecturing on that for years! Definitely look forward to the discussion of questions. That’s a BIG interest of mine; I’ve been lecturing on that for years!

]]>