iat 801 qualitative research methods - introduction, week 1

Sept 4, 2007 IAT 334 Interface Design Instructor Ron Wakkary

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

IAT 801 Qualitative Research Methods - Ron Wakkary

IAT 801 Qualitative Research Methods - Introduction,Week 1

Instructor: Ron Wakkary (rwakkary@sfu.ca)

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

WK1: Introduction

• Introductions• A research tale - “A Major Malfunction:

Challenger Shuttle”• Philosophical reference points• Quality in research: Guiding ideals• Course overview• Exercise

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

WK1: Introductions

• Introductions• Who are you? Where are you in your

graduate studies?• What do you know about research methods?• What do you want to get from this course?

• http://www.sfu.ca/~rwakkary• Ethnography• Case study• Mixed Methods

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

A research tale: “A Major Malfunction: ChallengerShuttle”

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

A research tale: “A Major Malfunction: Challenger Shuttle”

source: wikipedia commons

January 28, 1986 the Challenger Shuttle exploded 73 seconds into its flightkilling the crew of seven

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Rogers Commission Report:Why did this happen?

• O-Rings failed due to unusual low airtemperature (below 0 degrees Celsius)

What happened?• A design flaw in the O-Rings was known

but not addressedHow did this happen?

• NASA’s organizational culture in regard tosafety, and decision making processesfailed.

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

source: feynman.com

Richard Feynman’s demonstration of the O-Ring’s physical properties at atemperature below freezing (see RealPlayer Video)

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Feynman demonstrated in an experimentthat the O-Rings do not expand when at atemperature of less than 0 degrees

Feynman’s finding was reproducible andobservable through an experiment

Feynman’s experiment reduced the problemto the material behaviour of the O-Ringsshowing cause and effect

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

source: feynman.com

“A Major Malfunction” BBC documentary detailing the disaster and theRogers Commission (see YouTube video: Major Malfunction Part 3)

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Commission members interviewed andquestioned stakeholders and participants

Commission members analysed documents

Commission members asked informants toreconstruct experiences

Commission members constructed a detailedaccount of the event

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Argumentation: “the argument can bemade…”

Interpretation: “I refer to these as magicwand tricks”

Metaphor: “Ace relief pitcher…that is injured”

Reconstruction: “What happened during thatnight…”

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Interaction of research approaches provides the fuller account

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Philosophical reference points

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

The goals and qualities of findings andexplanations simply differ betweenepistemological approaches without ahierarchical relationship.

However, understanding the underlyingphilosophical foundations, e.g. positivismand constructivism, help in explaining whyqualitative research has taken shape theway it has.

Historically, qualitative research has been aresponse (a critical one) to positivisticthinking

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Positivism - “neutral observer of the world”• Realism: a shared objective reality exists,

e.g. an observable phenomenon• Reductivism: reality can be decomposed

into essential elements, e.g. atomicelements

• Deterministic: reality can be seen asinterlocking relationships of cause andeffect, I.e. like clockwork

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

PositivismStrengths:• Demonstrable knowledge• Discovery of lawsLimits:• Limited explanations• Irreducibility of phenomena• Limits on neutrality or objectivity

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Constructivism - “constructsunderstandings”

• Idealism: multiple views coexist, e.g.cultural and social differences

• Holistic: subjects and context areinseparable, e.g. ecologies

• Dynamism: phenomena are not absolutelymeasurable and are changing, I.e.historical change (Kuhnian revolutions)

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

ConstructivismStrengths:• Wide scope of explanations• Addresses human and social phenomena• Rich and detailed accountsLimits:• Relativism• Explanations are not necessarily

demonstrable or self-evident• Limits of bias or subjectivity

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

The point is not that these views aremutually exclusive or in opposition (theshuttle example shows how they caninteract). However, it is important tounderstand that constructivism is acritique of positivism, and qualitativemethods emerged to supportconstructivist approaches to knowledgeand research. But pragmatically you areencouraged to separate the philosophicalbattles from the practice of doingresearch.

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Seale (1999) makes the following salientpoints:

• Research is a craft skill relativelyautonomous from the underlyingphilosophical or epistemological debates

• Explicit methodological awareness winsout over unthinking adherence to rules ofmethods

• Like it or not, research communities existto promote good-quality research,however defined

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Quality in research: Guiding ideals

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

“What does it take to trust an author?”Seale (1999)

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Commitments in Qualitative Research:

• Lincoln & Guba’s (1985) NaturalisticInquiry criteria– Credibility– Transferability– Dependability– Confirmability

• Creswell’s characteristics of a goodqualitative study

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Naturalistic Inquiry Criteria

Credibility:• “member checks” that show study participants

findings and research reports for agreement• Prolonged engagement in the setting, persistent

observations, and triangulation• Exposure of research to criticism disinterested

peers• Search for negative instances and counter-

arguments that challenge findings andformulations

• Akin to “truth value” or “internal validity”

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Transferability:• Provision of detailed, rich descriptions of the

setting study offering readers sufficient informationto judge the applicability of the study to othersettings

• Akin to “applicability” and “external validity”

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Dependability:• Making a clear “audit trail” for the research in which

documentation of data, methods, and decisionsmade during the project, including the end productis transparent and available

• Akin to “consistency” and “reliability”

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Confirmability:• “reflexivity” that makes the researcher present and

incorporates dependability• Methodological self-critical accounts• Acceptance of ongoing interpretation and

discursive practices in which the inquiry does notclaim to be unassailable or absolute

• Akin or related to “neutrality” or “objectivity”

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Creswell’s (eight) characteristics of a ‘good’qualitative study

1. Employ of rigorous data collection proceduresinvolving adequate time in the field, multiple formsof data, salient and clear analysis

2. Studies’ commitment to qualitative assumptions:evolving design, presentation of multiple realities,inclusion of the researcher as an instrument ofdata collection, and a focus on participants’ views

3. Reflexively and explicitly adhere to a tradition ofinquiry or inquiries in mixed approaches

4. Studies begin with a single focus or problem withthe aim of description and later explanation. Notisolation of variables or group comparisons

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Creswell’s (eight) characteristics of a ‘good’ qualitativestudy

5. Studies maintain integrity in the use of researchmethods (detailed methods, data collection, dataanalysis, and report writing) including procedures forverification

6. Writing is persuasive, providing a sense of “being there”for the reader or verisimilitude

7. Data analysis uses multiple layers of abstractions withlevels of explanation and description

8. Writing is clear, engaging and an integral part of theinquiry

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Course Overview

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Exercise

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Labs & Next Class

Overview of a study• 1200-1600 words• Submit to the Wiki by Jan. 14th• Write in summary form including:

– What is the issue, problem or phenomenonyou plan to study

– What is the major research question– What is the data you will collect and who are

participants in your study– What do you think is the importance of the

study– What is your relationship to the topic and the

participants in the study

Week 1 - Jan. 7, 2008

Questions?

Ron Wakkary (rwakkary@sfu.ca)

iat 801 qualitative research methods - introduction, week 1

Documents

my own iat

iat 814 interaction

iat-380 sound design 1 philippe pasquier, september...

iat 801 qualitative research methods - standards of

iat - student workbook

iat 801 qualitative research methods - introducing...

iat 814 graphs

iat 334 experimental evaluation

iat 355 text

iat 0932 chapter1 rev2

june 2015 iat newsletter

iat made by me

iat 0932 chapter10 rev2

iat buru project

panayides & walker iat 2012

iat 814 data

iat 888: metacreation

iat 334 oo programming

ach iat payment method

iat catalog