On 3 January 2016 at 17:14, Teena Clerke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> To tease out your definition, 'the available body of facts or information
> indicating whether a proposition is true or valid' – there have been
> decades of qualitative research that has collected, analysed and reported
> on what people believe, say and do in modes other than what I assume you
> refer to as numerical/statistical (as this is not in your definition).
> Courts regularly draw on ‘evidence’ presented as first hand accounts of
> what happened, ie. witness testimony, to make decisions in law – do you
> watch Judge Judy?
Couple of things:
1. It seems to me that the *only* way (that we know of currently) to ensure
that data (be it quantitative or qualitative, and regardless of how it was
collected/analyzed/etc) is robust and reliable is through appropriate
statistical analysis.
2. First hand accounts are, perhaps, not as robust as one might wish they
were. See, for instance:
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/end-eyewitness-testimonies-285414.html,
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx, and
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|