lecture qual. and quant. tools - efss 2015
TRANSCRIPT
From Desk to Field: From Desk to Field:
Semiotic Research via Qualitative Semiotic Research via Qualitative
and Quantitative Methodsand Quantitative Methods
Early-Fall School of Semiotics
““Ways of Semiotic ResearchWays of Semiotic Research””
Sept. 10 / 2015, Sozopol
/ Bulgaria
Dr. Dimitar TrendafilovNew Bulgarian University – Sofia
South-East European Center for Semiotic Studies / Dep. of Economics
Agenda
Meaning
Why Qual. & Quant. methods?
Triangulation Argument
Secondary Data Analysis
Ethnography and Netnography
The Semantic Differential
Meaning?
First and foremost, we need to know a little bit more about Meaning and its crucial place in our lives, even in our everyday routine. Actually, it’s the key tool for us to share our experience, impressions, ideas and even feelings, and to provide coordination of our acts and goals. And all this happens despite in almost all of its manifestations meaning is affected by dilution, improvement or extension.
That’s why semiotics distinguishes denotation and connotation, basis and uses of meaning, that could stay amazingly far from one another. Meaning is a living and highly changeable entity, which is related with so many factors that it’s impossible to any individual to keep it as it is. But, however, we keep trying to grasp it for different purposes. In the context of EFSS 2015, our purpose is just to use it as a working term to present some research approaches.
Meaning and Culture – from language to cultural symbols (L. Oswald [2015: 140-141] – Whorf’s Hypothesis about the French distinction between raw and cooked lamb, including distinguishing various parts of the animal, while in the UK it refers predominantly to wool and textile industry).
Why Qual. and Quant. Methods
together?
A lot of factors cause the urban legend that Qual. and
Quant. methods are in some kind of opposition while, in
fact, they are/could be highly complementary.
Just to name a few factors: the artificial division
between them in universities and in research agencies,
the specialization researchers usually have, the
technical training and availability they need, etc.
Qual. and Quant. Methods together /1
Quantitative methods are focused on “How
many/much?”, but they need very clear idea what to
measure and how questionnaire to be designed.
Qualitative methods aim to find answer/s of the
question “Why?”, but it takes time and needs both right
questions to be asked, to the right people, and an
verification by broader sample.
Qual. and Quant. Methods together /2
According to the Phase-model Qual. methods generate hypotheses and Quant. test them (Kelle and Erzberger 2004).
However, it’s possible for Qual. procedures to help in filling gaps in explanation using “sociological variables”where statistical relations are explained by additional assumptions after the event, while Quant. procedures are able to show super-individual structural relationships, which are not consciously observed by the individuals and don’t come out by the interviews.
Qual. and Quant. Methods together /3
The usual accusation to semiotics is the subjectivity, the high level of personal intervention it has. This means that the results depend on the experience, involvement and skills of the researcher beyond the level practitioners can endorse. That’s why semiotics meets limited acceptance among professional research methods, especially when we are talking about the business area.
Business prefers the language of numbers in order to be able to compare and to conglomerate data. What business forgets very often, however, is the fact that the beginning and in the end of the process stays some human being who designs the research instruments and eventually interprets the raw data to convert it in useful information. The device that processes the numbers is important, but it reminds to be an instrument, not different than spade or fork.
Triangulation?
Images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CD006-Triangulation_16th_century.png / http://www.neilson.co.za/mobile-network-geolocation-obtaining-the- cell-ids-the-signal-strength-of-surrounding-towers-from-a-gsm-modem/ / http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying1.html
Triangulation /2
It’s broadly defined as “the combination of methodologies in
the study of the same phenomenon” (N. Denzin, 1978, “The
Research Act”).
It seeks to overcome the limitations and weaknesses of
each method chosen and used in given research project,
thus, it falls in the group of the so called “multiple methods”
which is strategy of convergent methodology or convergent
validation (Jick 1979).
Images: http://archives.rockpaperink.com/content/article.php?id=1039 / http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2009/12/testing-content-concepts.php
Triangulation /3
The principle of comparison of different data (usually
Qual. and Quant.) as well as different methods (e.g.
observation and interviews as usually the
anthropologists do) in order to see whether and how
they collaborate one another.
It refers to combination of different perspectives to
the object or different findings on it.
Triangulation /4
Triangulation helps in demonstrating that the result are
valid and relevant as they are, but not because of the
influence of the methodology.
The wide spread opinion is that it’s a validation strategy
but in reality it could serve for larger scope of purposes.
It requires creativity as well as revision when the
methods don’t fit very well (Jick 1979).
Triangulation /5 – Types /1
Triangulation of data – it combines data drown from
different sources and at different times, in different
places and different people.
Investigator triangulation – the use of different
observers or interviewers, to balance out the subjective
influences of individuals (Flick 2004: 179).
Triangulation /5 – Types /2
Triangulation of theories – “approaching data with
multiple perspectives and hypothesis in mind… Various
theoretical points of view could be placed side by side
to assess their utility and power” (Denzin 1978).
Essentially it involves cross-checking for internal
consistency or reliability (when it’s “within-method”) or
tests the degree of external validity (when it’s
“between-methods”) (Jick 1979: 603).
Triangulation /6 (Uwe Flick 2004)
Within-method – using two techniques of data
collection under one method /for example, semi-
structured interview and narrative approach/ in order to
take advantage of their strengths.
They act like complementary tools for extracting the
meaning we are after and in the same time the
researcher clarifies the different facets of the
subjective approach.
Triangulation /7
Between-method – usually it refers to the linking of Qual.
and Quant. methods, but it could be also a combination
between secondary date analysis and immersed
observation, which allows the researcher to capture the
different aspects of the issue under study.
It is highly applicable in ethnology rather because of the
extension of possibilities to discover about the aspects of
the phenomenon/object than because of reciprocal
validation of individual methods.
Our Example – Coffee Drinking in BG, Project 2012 /1
1st stage – Semi-structured Interviews, 25 respondents
and a consultation with coffee expert / marketer.
Our Example – Coffee Drinking in BG, Project 2012 /2
2nd stage – Online-based Questionnaire, more than 400 respondents, and parallel Internet research for secondary data available.
Triangulation /8
Criticism: extreme eclecticism that could put great doubt
about the argument the multiple methods involved could
gain “total” picture of given phenomenon.
Answering the critics, the triangulation apologist Norman
Denzin tries to present it more as strategy leading to a
deeper understanding and a step to a road to greater
knowledge than as validity improving tool (in Flick 2004:
179).
Triangulation /9 (Uwe Flick, 2004: 183)
As a conclusion, three modes of application of
triangulation are available:
Verification strategy (as we used it to certain extend for
the “coffee-culture” project).
As an approach for all discoveries generalization.
As a route to additional knowledge.
Secondary data analysis?
Applied semiotics is popular predominantly with the use of
set of secondary data because it researches culture and
meaning production in it, thus, it needs artifacts – bearers
of meaning.
Or, as someone put it once, “People don’t know what they
know” and, at best, they could only make suggestion and
interpretation of what they know and understand, but in
the most of the cases they are “artifacts” too. They are
products of their culture, saying “Everybody knows it”.
Secondary data analysis /2
The disadvantage of the secondary data is that it’s not
collected/prepared for the research we conduct, but in
semiotics usually we use larger sample of sources and
sources which are not quite particular and very closed as
information, therefore researchers have bigger basis to
work on and to extract findings and hypothesis to work on
further on (e.g. magazine articles, advertisements, books,
etc.).
Ethnography /1
It originates in anthropologic research since the beginning of
the existence of this science, but together with the work of C.
Levi-Strauss, “on-field” semiotics received serious impulse
from C. Geertz and M. Douglas.
Ethnomethodology aims to determine the principles and
mechanisms by means of which social actors, in their action,
produce the meaningful structure and ordering of what is
happening around them and what they express and do in
social integration with others (Bergmann, in Flick et al. 2004:
72 ff).
Ethnography /2
Semiotic ethnography accounts for multiple discourses,
cultural perspectives, and sign systems at the play in the
interpretative process (Winner 1983, in Oswald 2015:
137).
The ethnographic disposition stages the intersection of
context, reference, and the complex inter-subjective
relationship and informants in the active production of
meaning (Oswald 2015: 137).
Ethnography /3
Unlike hypothesis testing, which uses research to prove a
theory, SE employs theory to decode the field site and
also uses field operations to advance theories about
tradition, social operation and perception of value in a
given setting (Oswald 2015: 137).
It invites the ethnographer to reflect the role of cultural
codes in the perceived meaning and value of cultural
signs (Joseph 1983 in Oswald 2015: 137).
Ethnography /4
It includes - Participant observation and Extended
participation (without any interviews and documents
reading, just watching and experiencing everyday life)
It concerns small life-worlds and not the whole society
itself and focus the attention on its culture (language,
values and behavior) and forms of knowledge. Urban
culture, consumer communities and lifestyle subcultures
are among the contemporary ethnos-es under study.
Netnography /1 (Robert Kozinets, in Belk 2006: 129)
The Internet is a sphere where communities of different
sizes and with various purposes share information,
opinions and ideas which is different but prominent
research field.
Usual places – forums, chat rooms, blogs, game-playing
spaces, and social media. They differ in the interests and
devotion of the participants, but the amount of data is like
in no field before.
Netnography /2
Three types of data: 1. The data directly copied from the
platforms, posted by the community members, 2. The
data that the researcher inscribes regarding the
observations on the community, particular members,
interactions and meaning as well as his/her own
participation, and 3. Direct approach to individuals and
interviewing.
Although it seems like close to content analysis,
netnography inevitably deploy number of techniques.
Netnography /3
Being multi-method approach, Netnography would
include projective techniques, historical and content
analyses, semiotic and visual analyses, survey work as
well as interviews, observations, etc.
As it becomes clear, even though it’s mainly oriented to
online communities, it does not mean that Netnography
leaves the offline approach to groups, individuals and
events.
Netnography /4
Observational
Netnography
(Distant position)
Participant-
Observational
Netnography
Auto-
Netnography
(Self-observation)
According to the Ration of Participation:
Low-None to High
Semantic Differential?
Semantic differential is a type of a rating scale
designed to measure the connotative meaning of
objects, events, and concepts. The connotations are
used to derive the attitude towards the given object,
event or concept (Wikipedia 2015; Osgood et al. 1967).
Usually it’s applicable to the difficult to be defined objects
and phenomena, vague or just hard to be explained in
simple words.
Semantic Differential /2
For the first time it was an application of his more
general attempt to measure the semantics or meaning
of words, particularly adjectives, and their referent concepts. The respondent is asked to choose where
his or her position lies, on a scale between two bipolar adjectives (for example: "Good-Evil" or "Valuable-
Worthless"). SD can be used to measure opinions, attitudes and values. (Wikipedia 2015)
Semantic Differential /3
Images: http://www.mm4xl.com/semantic-differential-measurement-scale-chart-software.php / http://www.mm4xl.com/semantic-differential-measurement-scale-chart-software.php
Semantic Differential /3
According to the phenomenon studied it’s challenging to
find the best/relevant oppositions about it since they are
not self-evident (for example, in everyday speech in BG,
cars are never “fast - slow”, but “powerful - tied”).
It’s better not to put antonyms constructed by negation
(like “clear - unclear”, rather “clear - vague”) because it
causes negative attitude instead of evaluation and rating.
LiteratureBelk, Russell (ed.), 2006. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications, Inc. Creswell, J.W., 2012. Educational Research. Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Boston & London: Pearson Education, Inc. Denzin, Norman and Lincoln, Yvonna (eds.), 2005. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd
ed..London & Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.Flick, Uwe, 2004. Triangulation in Qualitative Research. In Flick, U., Von Kardorff, E. and Steinke, I (eds.) “A Companion to Qualitative Research”, pp. 178-183. London & Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Gacitúa-Marió, E. and Wodon, Q. (eds.). 2001. Measurement and Meaning. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Jick, T.D., 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Qualitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. In Administrative Science Quarterly. 24, pp. 602-611.Kelle, Udo and Erzberger, Christian, 2004. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Not in Opposition. In Flick, U., Von Kardorff, E. and Steinke, I (eds.) “A Companion to Qualitative Research”, pp. 172-177. London & Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George J. and Tannenbaum, Percy H. 1967. The Measurement of Meaning. Chicago and London: University of Illinois Press.Oswald, Laura R. 2015. Creating Value. The Theory and Practice of Marketing Semiotics Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Peterson, Jordan B., 1999. Maps of Meaning. The Architecture of Belief. London/New York: Routledge.Portner, Paul H. 2005. What is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics. Malden, Ma and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.