#Qualitative Peeps. From my very little playing around with it, it seems that AI can fundamentally impact qualitative data analysis and coding. If you or someone you know has used it systematically in qual analysis (or written about it), will you let me know?
In fooling around w/ ChatGPT w/ #qualitative analysis, I asked, "what is the sentiment of the following data?" [inserted deidentified data] & then, "what are the three main themes in the following conversation?" I found the descriptive summaries useful & astonishingly on point.
I then asked, "what are some theories that could help explain these themes?" And several were provided that make sense given the analysis we conducted. This experiment was with data that I've already collected and analyzed in the past.
I don't have enough information yet to recommend AI for #qualitative data analysis, but my curiosity is definitely piqued. I suspect that many many people will be turning to AI to assist w/ their qualitative data analyses into the future--for better or for worse.
I wonder whether folks will take AI #qualitative analysis methods as definitive & credible before or regardless of systematic analyses of how it compares to human analyses. I also wonder about the ethical impact of entering in sensitive data. Thoughts? Info?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#Qualitative research is outstanding for understanding WHY.
BUT this does not mean that asking "why" questions in interviews is always the best way to go.
So what's the problem with "why" and what can researchers use instead?
🧵
The problem with "why" interview questions is that, when you ask people "why", they often become defensive, or simply double down on their convictions with a lack of reflexivity. What's more they, often philosophize.
A better avenue for interviewing can be to ask "how" instead of why.
For example:
How does that work?
How did you come to have that belief?
How is it that you came to engage in _______ behavior?
Trying to contrast literature review (LR) from theoretical framework (TF)?
The LR synthesizes existing knowledge re. the research problem.
The TF provides a lens for analyzing & explaining the data.
A good research study must ADVANCE the literature but usually only USES the TF.
E.g., 1) a Foucauldian analysis (TF) of emotional labor (LR). 2) identifying functions of humor (LR) using sensemaking theory (TF) 3) understanding work-life balance (LR) through a structurational lens (TF)
Knowing at least some of the related literature at the beginning of a study is fundamental for research design, appropriate research questions, etc. Most folks don't want to spend years of their life illuminating a problem that already has a clear solution. But...
Just did an assessment of our #health#finances. After a ten-year personal experiment with a health savings account (#HSA) and our employer's high risk insurance option: GOOD CHOICE. I'm definitely not an expert, but if you're curious, here's our experience (a thread):
Our life situation made us right for an HSA. I was single for half the first 5 years, married for the 2nd, when married, both of us on HSA. No children, overall pretty healthy. Here's an article about who an HSA is good for: mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifest…
I deducted the maximum savings every year from my employer (which I believe was about $6,000). This went into our HSA. For medical expenses, if we had the extra cash, we used it rather than our HSA (as the HSA grows exponentially tax-free, which is a freaking good deal).
A few ideas for how to create space for the communication of suffering and other vulnerable emotions, and to connect with students and employees as multi-faceted human beings in synchronous virtual meetings and classes. #compassion#academicchatter#orgcom A thread. 1/13
Arrive a few minutes early w /all your necessary materials prepared. Then, just as participants join, briefly and actively greet them. Just saying "Hello Kali. Good morning Joe" let's people know that they've been recognized. They are not invisible. 2/13
Allow space for (but do not mandate) non-agenda or task driven discussion. One option is by placing folks in 2-3 person break-out rooms for warm-ups and breaks. Folks should feel free to do whatever they'd like...chat, check email, tune out, go grab a cup of coffee. cont. 3/13
One of the main things that stops good #qualitative research from being GREAT is that people get stuck during that ephemeral step between coding/thematizing and interpretation/claim-making.😩
Some musings and tips to help in this process:
As @ProfWay has pointed out, for most qual researchers, line-by-line coding is not necessary or appropriate on ALL of the study's empirical materials.
Choose a portion of your data (I recommend a maximum variation) for emergent coding, then check whether the codes are answering your RQ. If so, create a codebook & begin laying codes on top of the data. Do they work? Great. If not, go back & adapt. This is the iterative approach!