 |
 |
Thanks Luke, that's a really helpful and thoughtful response and we'll give it some serious thought. The triangulation that I'm implying isn't quite what you are seeing as it's comparing the original researcher's observations of the event with the observations of the expert panel. It is a strategy for reinforcing the coding. But I would say it's fairly implicit as triangulation goes and I'm happy to say that the term is more a metaphor than a precise description in this case. We aren't explicitly comparing two sets of data, rather we are subsuming them into a single analysis and researcher's understanding of the events is emergent so it moves from something personal and latent to something shared and explicit but a bit messy then back to a personal conclusion which needs to be more coherent. It wouldn't be so interesting if it was any other way :o) Chris .........................Chris RustDriver, Nether Edge [log in to unmask] > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:28:13 +1100 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Using expert reviewers for triangulation in qualitative research > To: [log in to unmask] > > Dear Chris, > > This note is more of a general thought on Triangulation and how expert > opinion can be used in argumentation. > > Triangulation refers to using multiple approaches to reduce bias of any one > approach and so to increase confidence in the findings. Denzin (cited in > Bryman, 2003) distinguished four types of triangulation. > > 1. Data Triangulation. Gathering data through several sampling strategies, > for example, collecting data from multiple cases. > 2. Investigator Triangulation. More than one researcher gathering and > interpreting data. > 3. Theoretical Triangulation. Using more than one theoretical position to > interpret data. > 4. Methodological Triangulation. Using more than one method to gather data. > > Methodological Triangulation tends to be the most common meaning of the > term. Methodological Triangulation usually aims to contrast methods, for > example, an interview and a questionnaire. > > From what I understand, you have collected two records. Record 1, a video > of some design activity. Record 2, a video of a meeting between a panel of > experts who are exposed to a stimulus, namely, Record 1. > > To me, this sounds more or less like Methodological Triangulation of > observation and focus group methods. > > I think using the two records as Data Triangulation for an investigation > into collaboration, i.e. video 1 observed collaboration and the experts > "collaborated" during their discussion in video 2, would be problematic > because the two cases are too different to be compared. > > Selecting a sample of experts for the focus group is an appeal to expert > opinion. Arguments based on expert testimony are inherently more subjective > than deductively valid arguments or inductively confirmed arguments based > on evidence that is highly probably. An appeal to expert opinion should not > be seen an a substitute for getting factual evidence, that being the case, > expert testimony can be a valuable guide to seek information. Of course, > appeal to expert testimony is used extensively in law. > > An argument based on an appeal to expert opinion can evaluated using series > of critical questions (Walton, 2006, p. 88). How credible is the he/she as > a source? Is he/she an expert in the field that he/she is asserting > something about? Is he/she personally reliable as a source? Is his/her > testimony consistent with what other experts assert? Is the expert's > assertion based on evidence? > > In this situation, Data Triangulation would be criticised for subscribing > to a naive realist position because it assumes that sets of data from quite > different methods and contexts can be unambiguously compared. However, as > Methodological Triangulation the observation and expert opinion to can be > seen to add richness and complexity to an inquiry. > > Regards, > Luke > > > Bryman, A. (2003). Triangulation. *The Sage encyclopedia of social science > research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage*. > > Walton, D. N. (2006). *Fundamentals of critical argumentation*. Cambridge; > New York: Cambridge University Press. > > > > On 26 November 2013 08:34, Teena Clerke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > > while not in the area of design research or ‘expert review', collaborative > > reflexive video research in health communication is a well established > > field that might be helpful. I recommend the work of Rick Iedema and > > Katherine Carroll, of the Centre for Health Communication at the University > > of Technology, Sydney (UTS) – see below – and Nick Hopwood, my colleague in > > the Centre for Research in Learning and Change at UTS. Nick and I worked > > together on video ethnography – one paper below. > > > > You might also look at Gillian Rose’s visual methods and Sarah Pink’s work > > on visual methodologies. And papers presented at the recent Visual > > Methodologies conference in September this year in Wellington NZ, at which > > Sarah presented. > > > > I hope this is helpful, > > cheers, teena > > > > Hopwood, N. (In press). Using video to trace the embodied and material in > > a study of health practice. Qualitative Research Journal. > > > > Juhasz A, Heath C & Iedema R (2009) Post-script: the significance of video > > research methodology for health and social science. International Journal > > for Multiple Research Approaches 3(3): 321-324. > > > > Iedema R, Merrick E, Rajbhandari D, Gardo A, Stirling A, Herkes R. (2009) > > Viewing the taken-for-granted from under a different aspect: a video-based > > method in pursuit of patient safety. International Journal for Multiple > > Research Approaches. 3(3), pp. 290-301. > > > > Carroll, K., Iedema, R., & Kerridge, R. (2008). Reshaping ICU ward round > > practices using video reflexive ethnography. Qualitative Health Research, > > 18(3), 380-390. > > > > Iedema, R., Forsyth, R., Georgiou, A., Braithwaite, J., and Westbrook, J. > > (2007) Video research in health: Visibilizing the effects of computerizing > > clinical care. Qualitative Research Journal. 6(2): pp. 15-30. > > > > Iedema, R., Long, D., Forsyth, R., & Lee, B. (2006). Visibilizing clinical > > work: Video ethnography in the contemporary hospital. Health Sociology > > Review. 15(2): 156-168. > > > > Delaney,G., Jacob, S., Iedema, R., Winters,M. and Barton, M. (2004), “A > > Comparison of Face-to-face and Video-conferenced Multi-disciplinary > > Clinical meetings.” Australasian Radiology 48: 487-492 > > Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography: images, media, and > > representation in research. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. > > > > Pink, S. (Ed.). (2012). Advances in visual ethnography. London; Thousand > > Oaks; Singapore: Sage Publications Ltd. > > > > > > Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies. An introduction to researching with > > visual methods (3 ed.). London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.; New Delhi; > > Singapore: Sage Publications Ltd. > > > > > > On 26 Nov 2013, at 1:06 am, Chris Rust <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > In the present case the researcher was exploring the value of mockups in > > particular kinds of collaboration. He conducted some codesign workshops > > where he took the part of the designer/facilitator working with an expert > > surgeon to explore new designs of surgical simulators (anatomical models) > > through the use of mockups. Subsequently he convened a group of experienced > > designers to view the video material and recorded their reactions and > > observations to help identify key events and instances of "designerly" > > thinking by the participants. He has used the expert discussion (also on > > video) as another layer in his analysis of the original video, video > > squared like this is useful as the two have their event timings in sync. > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -- > > Luke Feast | Lecturer | Early Career Development Fellow | PhD Candidate | > Faculty of Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia > | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6165 | > http://www.swinburne.edu.au/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 > ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------