Let the Data Speak: Using Rigour to Extract Vitality from Qualitative Data

Q3 Business, Management and Accounting Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.34190/JBRM.18.1.001
A. Campbell
{"title":"Let the Data Speak: Using Rigour to Extract Vitality from\n Qualitative Data","authors":"A. Campbell","doi":"10.34190/JBRM.18.1.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Qualitative data can be gathered from an array of rich\n sources of research information. One of the popular ways to collect\n this data is by interviewing a range of experts on the topic,\n followed by transcription, resulting in a database of written\n documents, often supplemented by other documented data that informs\n the topic. Thematic or Content Analysis can then be used to explore\n the data and identify themes of meaning that enlighten the research\n topic, with the themes being gathered into nodes. The researcher now\n has an array of nodes, which needs to be organised into a coherent\n model, and more importantly, one that represents the views of the\n research informants. To do this with some degree of rigour, the\n researcher needs some way of ranking the nodes in terms of their\n relative importance. The node ranking can be based on experience, or\n on the literature, but neither of these approaches looks to the data\n itself. If the database contains new or unexpected knowledge,\n neither experience nor the literature will guide us to it, and vital\n new insights may easily be missed. The framework outlined in this\n paper aims to provide a sound first‑cut analysis of the data, based\n on the evidence in the research interviews themselves. Clearly the\n literature and research experience have an important role to play in\n shaping the results of any research. However this paper argues that\n one should proceed only after the data itself has been offered \"the\n first chance to speak\".The node classification matrix detailed here,\n identifies distinct node categories, each ranging in significance\n and with particular characteristics that reveal key aspects of the\n informants' views. In this way the researcher can use the nodes to\n reveal the voice of the experts, and build a scientifically rigorous\n set of results from a qualitative database.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.18.1.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Qualitative data can be gathered from an array of rich sources of research information. One of the popular ways to collect this data is by interviewing a range of experts on the topic, followed by transcription, resulting in a database of written documents, often supplemented by other documented data that informs the topic. Thematic or Content Analysis can then be used to explore the data and identify themes of meaning that enlighten the research topic, with the themes being gathered into nodes. The researcher now has an array of nodes, which needs to be organised into a coherent model, and more importantly, one that represents the views of the research informants. To do this with some degree of rigour, the researcher needs some way of ranking the nodes in terms of their relative importance. The node ranking can be based on experience, or on the literature, but neither of these approaches looks to the data itself. If the database contains new or unexpected knowledge, neither experience nor the literature will guide us to it, and vital new insights may easily be missed. The framework outlined in this paper aims to provide a sound first‑cut analysis of the data, based on the evidence in the research interviews themselves. Clearly the literature and research experience have an important role to play in shaping the results of any research. However this paper argues that one should proceed only after the data itself has been offered "the first chance to speak".The node classification matrix detailed here, identifies distinct node categories, each ranging in significance and with particular characteristics that reveal key aspects of the informants' views. In this way the researcher can use the nodes to reveal the voice of the experts, and build a scientifically rigorous set of results from a qualitative database.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
让数据说话:使用严谨从定性数据中提取活力
定性数据可以从一系列丰富的研究信息来源中收集。收集这些数据的一种常用方法是采访该主题的一系列专家,然后进行转录,形成书面文件数据库,通常由其他记录数据补充,以告知该主题。然后可以使用主题或内容分析来探索数据并确定启发研究主题的意义主题,并将主题收集到节点中。研究人员现在有了一组节点,需要将它们组织成一个连贯的模型,更重要的是,一个代表研究举报人观点的模型。为了在一定程度上做到这一点,研究人员需要根据节点的相对重要性对它们进行排序。节点排名可以基于经验,也可以基于文献,但这两种方法都不考虑数据本身。如果数据库包含新的或意想不到的知识,无论是经验还是文献都无法引导我们找到它,重要的新见解可能很容易被遗漏。本文概述的框架旨在根据研究访谈本身的证据,对数据进行合理的初步分析。显然,文献和研究经验在形成任何研究结果方面都发挥着重要作用。然而,本文认为,只有在数据本身获得“第一次发言机会”之后,人们才应该继续进行研究。这里详细介绍的节点分类矩阵确定了不同的节点类别,每个类别在重要性和特定特征上都有所不同,这些特征揭示了举报人观点的关键方面。通过这种方式,研究人员可以使用节点来揭示专家的声音,并从定性数据库中构建科学严谨的结果集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (EJBRM) provides perspectives on topics relevant to research methods applied in the field of business and management. Through its publication the journal contributes to the development of theory and practice. The journal accepts academically robust papers that contribute to the area of research methods applied in business and management research. Papers submitted to the journal are double-blind reviewed by members of the reviewer committee or other suitably qualified readers. The Editor reserves the right to reject papers that, in the view of the editorial board, are either of insufficient quality, or are not relevant enough to the subject area. The editor is happy to discuss contributions before submission. The journal publishes work in the categories described below. Research Papers: These may be qualitative or quantitative, empirical or theoretical in nature and can discuss completed research findings or work in progress. Case Studies: Case studies are welcomed illustrating business and management research methods in practise. View Points: View points are less academically rigorous articles usually in areas of controversy which will fuel some interesting debate. Conference Reports and Book Reviews: Anyone who attends a conference or reads a book that they feel contributes to the area of Business Research Methods is encouraged to submit a review for publication.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling Endogeneity: A Systematic Review of Methodologies in Digital Leadership and Remote Work Research Double Bias of Mistakes: Essence, Consequences, and Measurement Method Statistically Validating a Theory Represented by a Venn Diagram How Cognitive Biases Influence Problematic Research Methods Practices Using Mixed Methods to Understand Tax Compliance Behaviour
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1