As the seminars for this week’s theme were cancelled, this reflection will be based only on the lecture held by Ilias Bergström. From the lecture I understood that the seminar would centre around questionnaries, with a practical focus. During the lecture, Ilias spoke about qualitative research methods, and highlighted the statistical tests. What surprised me during the lecture was the perspective of the researcher interpreting the numbers and therefor qualitative research is not always so unbiased as one might think.
I think one of the major pros with using a quantitative method is the way the output can be easily analysed and visualized. I interpret that data deriving from quantitative research such as focus groups, qualitative interviews or field research is harder to both analyse and present in a clear manner.
During the lecture the question was brought up what the results would have been if the casually dark skinned character instead would have worn formal clothing. Ilias then talked about the lack of interest in the research community to reproduce research originally conducted by others, as well as the problems of getting funding for that kind of research. This increased my understanding of the importance of a researchers’ reputation and how the impact factor of the paper that publishes the research influence that reputation.
I wish that Ilias would have raised the question of why the study was conducted, and why the results occurred in order for me to get a deeper understanding of why the relationship between the variables occurred. Looking at another paper with different theory-building could have contributed to enhance this differentiation.
Compared to the previous themes, I feel that the knowledge gained during this week’s theme had a more superficial nature, which could be due to the cancelled seminar.
The previous themes really made me question knowledge in a wide sense, and throughout the course I feel that we are progressing towards knowledge production in a narrower sense. I however appreciated the the opportunity to apply the concept of theory to the readings.
Hi! Thanks for your reflections, I really enjoyed reading it.
SvaraRaderaTo elaborate on the qualitative method not being that objective. I think that in comparison to the quantitative method, the approach of the qualitative method is the most subjective as the researcher is more involved in comparison to the quantitative research. Because the researcher is more involved, data from the qualitative method is mainly verbal (semi-structured interview), while the quantitative method is often measurable data (survey).
As addition to the first comment from u1cq6h0z, qualitative research is not just more subjective, because the researcher has a higher involvement in data collection, but also because the data analyzation depends more on the prior knowledge of the researcher and his experience. It is about reading in between the lines and understanding the construct behind it. In quantitative research the data is numerical and there is no reading between the lines necessary or possible. That doesn’t mean that the one or other are more difficult or more valuable. Both aim for a different understanding of the field. According to me that’s the most important to understand about research in social sciences.
SvaraRaderaThanks for your thoughts! I agree one of the strengths with using quantitative method is the possibility to easily analyze and visualize. But also it has a lot of other strengths, for instance you can test hypothesis that are constructed before collecting data. Usually it’s also easier to generalize finding beyond the sample, if it has been replicated of other researchers. Also it seems like data analyzing is less time consuming comparing to a qualitative method. I would say that a weakness is the ability of knowledge production; it might bee to abstract for application to individuals (for example). Anyway god job with your post!
SvaraRaderaAllo,
SvaraRaderaI understand that in a qualitative research the researchers needs to interpret data and that can go in a different way for each researcher doing this study, but I think there are no other way because the researcher brings his own knowledge to the understanding of the gathered data. Therefore, him and only him can interpret and explain in a simpler ways the results of his study based on what he knows and on what he expects the result to be (Because we often have an idea of what we are looking for).
Even though the lack of interest for redoing research is low it stays important in the research world to fortify prior theories by redoing them and ending up in a similar result. This is the bad work, low work of the field because you dont get any rewards if you find the same result, this is low reward compared to the amount of work. But it does amplifies the previous study and makes it more solid in term of trustworthiness !
Thank you for your reflection
Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.
SvaraRaderaI totally agree with you that the output of the quantitative method can be easily visualised. Similarly, I think it is great in terms of the anonymity it provides to its participants (if they wish such of course). Cause judging on my personal experience, once I am granted with anonymity I feel better in grading and providing information on more sensitive topics.
SvaraRaderaGood job on your reflection :)
Hi, thank you for your blog posts! Excellent job, the first post was especially a thorough one. Interesting choice for an article, and I enjoyed that you stated clearly the benefits and disadvantages of longitudinal studies in the context as well. As we can all probably agree by now, conducting a study like Drummin in IVR requires very careful planning regarding the instruments used, methods, design, sample, data collecting – everything. Due to the complex nature of the study and the many elements, it arises many questions for further studies. These questions regard a different sample as well as the future exploiting of the results.
SvaraRaderaGreat job, and thanks again! You really put time and effort to this.