JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  May 2014

PHD-DESIGN May 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Mixed methods research was: Qualitative and Quantitative Information

From:

Luke Feast <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 19 May 2014 21:43:54 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (209 lines)

Dear Don,



You wrote:

-snip-

In the form of Human-Centered Design that i practice and preach, which I
now call Observe, Make, Test (TOM -- letters restructured to make it
pronounceable):

   - Observations are qualitative

   - ​Making can be sketching, drawing, prototyping -- think of this as
instantiation

   - Testing transforms the qualitative Observations into quantitative
information, via the Made material​

-end snip-



The sequential mixed methods research design you propose seems to me to be
quite similar to Blessing and Chakrabarti’s (2009) DRM: Design Research
Methodology. Blessing and Chakrabarti’s (2009, p. 15) methodology has four
stages:



1. Research Clarification through literature analysis to identify goals

2. Descriptive Study 1 though empirical data analysis to understand the
factors structuring/generating something in the world

3. Prescriptive Study through synthesis (designing) to create support (a
design)

4. Descriptive Study 2 though empirical data analysis to investigate the
impact of the support and its ability to realise the change it is intended
to make.



As I see it, the difference between DRM and TOM is that Blessing and
Chakrabarti do not specify that first descriptive study should collect
qualitative data and the second descriptive study should collect
quantitative data, they leave it up to the researcher to choose the best
research method for the particular situation being investigated. I quite
like Blessing and Chakrabarti’s methodology and have used it in teaching
graduate level strategic design. However, we usually do not have time to
get through all four stages in a single semester so we tend to focus on
stages 1-3, and students often choose to collect either qualitative or
quantitative data depending on which methods they are most familiar with
using.



Qualitative data is useful for exploring new information and quantitative
data is useful for resolving the problem of sampling error through choosing
large enough samples and choosing them wisely. However, both approaches
also have potential pitfalls. Basing design claims on qualitative data may
not address the actual needs of users and quantitative research cannot be
performed where there is a lack of specific fundamental knowledge relevant
to the area of design to base hypotheses on.



In my undergraduate level introduction to design research course I teach an
intentionally mixed methods research design with stages as follows:



1. Research Clarification through literature analysis to identify goals

2. Descriptive Study 1 though qualitative empirical data analysis to
understand the something in the world

3. Descriptive Study 2 though quantitative empirical data analysis to test
the generalizability of the insights from Descriptive Study 1

4. Prescriptive Study through synthesis (making) to create support (a
product)



In this research design there is a transformation step where the
qualitative insights are transformed into hypotheses that can be tested
using quantitative instruments. Because the insights from DS1 are
transformed into hypotheses that are tested in DS2, I call this research
design an integrated sequential exploratory mixed methods approach. The
intention is that the qualitative analysis discloses insights relevant to
specific contexts and quantitative analysis makes it possible to test the
insights to derive some understanding of their certainty.



There are many ways to use qualitative and quantitative data in research.
Mixed method research refers to the use of both qualitative data and
quantitative data within one research design to answer the same research
question. Different approaches within mixed method research can be
distinguished based on either priority or implementation of data
collection. In essence, priority can be given to either qualitative or
quantitative research or equal weight can be placed on both within the
research design. Implementation of data collection refers to the choice to
either collect or interpret qualitative and quantitative data concurrently
or sequentially. The major mixed method designs derived from combinations
of these two factors are: triangulation, embedded, explanatory and
exploratory.



Triangulation occurs when both qualitative data and quantitative data are
interpreted simultaneously to provide more reliable results. Embedded
research seeks to clarify the results obtained with one type of research
with the other type of research. This can happen either sequentially or
concurrently and the choice of which one is used to clarify the other
depends on the research question. In an explanatory research design a
quantitative research phase is followed by a qualitative phase whereby the
qualitative results explain the quantitative results. The quantitative
phase informs the questions or sampling of the qualitative phase.
Exploratory designs start with qualitative research and those findings are
subsequently validated by quantitative results. Typically, the factors or
outcomes identified in the qualitative phase are applied to a larger and
more diverse sample in the quantitative phase. This latter approach is
often employed in relatively unstudied areas.



I think that the nature and uniqueness of situations often addressed by
designers call for an exploratory research approach. The qualitative
research can identify factors relevant for the specific context, while the
quantitative research can then validate the certainty of those factors and
test the design claim put forward. When qualitative and quantitative
research is integrated within a research design, the claims produced are
both valid and reliable.



I think it would be interesting to see what kind of outcomes you would get
if you used the DRM approach but with mixed methods for both DS1 and DS2.
So that would be the same as your TOM research design but using mixed
methods for both the O and the T stages.





Best regards

Luke



Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research
methodology. Dordrecht; London: Springer.


On 18 May 2014 01:24, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> ​Roger Martin of U. Toronto and I just had an on-stage discussion at the
> IIT/Institute of Design Strategy Conference​ in Chicago (moderated by
> Patrick Whitney).
>
> Roger made a very interesting point about the need to combine both
> qualitative and quantitative information (he called these "intuitive" and
> "analytical" -- but I detest the word "intuitive" because it doesn't mean
> what most people think it means)
>
> During the discussion of this, a new insight (at least for me) emerged:
> that the transformation between qual and quant was via testing.
>
> In the form of Human-Centered Design that i practice and preach, which I
> now call Observe, Make, Test (TOM -- letters restructured to make it
> pronounceable):
>
>    - Observations are qualitative
>    - ​Making can be sketching, drawing, prototyping -- think of this as
>    instantiation
>    - Testing transforms the qualitative Observations into quantitative
>    information, via the Made material​
>
> ​This argument requires considerable elaboration, but I wondered if this
> gorup can provide constructive critique of the notion.
>
> Part of this is to try to transform the argument about quantitative versus
> qualitative to eliminate the word "versus" with something else ("combined
> with"?​).  The point is that each serves a different purpose, and both are
> often needed.
>
> don
>


-- 

Luke Feast | Lecturer | Early Career Development Fellow | PhD Candidate |
Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6165 |
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/health-arts-design/


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager