{"title":"让数据说话:使用严谨从定性数据中提取活力","authors":"A. Campbell","doi":"10.34190/JBRM.18.1.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Qualitative data can be gathered from an array of rich\n sources of research information. One of the popular ways to collect\n this data is by interviewing a range of experts on the topic,\n followed by transcription, resulting in a database of written\n documents, often supplemented by other documented data that informs\n the topic. Thematic or Content Analysis can then be used to explore\n the data and identify themes of meaning that enlighten the research\n topic, with the themes being gathered into nodes. The researcher now\n has an array of nodes, which needs to be organised into a coherent\n model, and more importantly, one that represents the views of the\n research informants. To do this with some degree of rigour, the\n researcher needs some way of ranking the nodes in terms of their\n relative importance. The node ranking can be based on experience, or\n on the literature, but neither of these approaches looks to the data\n itself. If the database contains new or unexpected knowledge,\n neither experience nor the literature will guide us to it, and vital\n new insights may easily be missed. The framework outlined in this\n paper aims to provide a sound first‑cut analysis of the data, based\n on the evidence in the research interviews themselves. Clearly the\n literature and research experience have an important role to play in\n shaping the results of any research. However this paper argues that\n one should proceed only after the data itself has been offered \"the\n first chance to speak\".The node classification matrix detailed here,\n identifies distinct node categories, each ranging in significance\n and with particular characteristics that reveal key aspects of the\n informants' views. In this way the researcher can use the nodes to\n reveal the voice of the experts, and build a scientifically rigorous\n set of results from a qualitative database.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Let the Data Speak: Using Rigour to Extract Vitality from\\n Qualitative Data\",\"authors\":\"A. Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.34190/JBRM.18.1.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Qualitative data can be gathered from an array of rich\\n sources of research information. One of the popular ways to collect\\n this data is by interviewing a range of experts on the topic,\\n followed by transcription, resulting in a database of written\\n documents, often supplemented by other documented data that informs\\n the topic. Thematic or Content Analysis can then be used to explore\\n the data and identify themes of meaning that enlighten the research\\n topic, with the themes being gathered into nodes. The researcher now\\n has an array of nodes, which needs to be organised into a coherent\\n model, and more importantly, one that represents the views of the\\n research informants. To do this with some degree of rigour, the\\n researcher needs some way of ranking the nodes in terms of their\\n relative importance. The node ranking can be based on experience, or\\n on the literature, but neither of these approaches looks to the data\\n itself. If the database contains new or unexpected knowledge,\\n neither experience nor the literature will guide us to it, and vital\\n new insights may easily be missed. The framework outlined in this\\n paper aims to provide a sound first‑cut analysis of the data, based\\n on the evidence in the research interviews themselves. Clearly the\\n literature and research experience have an important role to play in\\n shaping the results of any research. However this paper argues that\\n one should proceed only after the data itself has been offered \\\"the\\n first chance to speak\\\".The node classification matrix detailed here,\\n identifies distinct node categories, each ranging in significance\\n and with particular characteristics that reveal key aspects of the\\n informants' views. In this way the researcher can use the nodes to\\n reveal the voice of the experts, and build a scientifically rigorous\\n set of results from a qualitative database.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.18.1.001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.18.1.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
Let the Data Speak: Using Rigour to Extract Vitality from
Qualitative Data
Qualitative data can be gathered from an array of rich
sources of research information. One of the popular ways to collect
this data is by interviewing a range of experts on the topic,
followed by transcription, resulting in a database of written
documents, often supplemented by other documented data that informs
the topic. Thematic or Content Analysis can then be used to explore
the data and identify themes of meaning that enlighten the research
topic, with the themes being gathered into nodes. The researcher now
has an array of nodes, which needs to be organised into a coherent
model, and more importantly, one that represents the views of the
research informants. To do this with some degree of rigour, the
researcher needs some way of ranking the nodes in terms of their
relative importance. The node ranking can be based on experience, or
on the literature, but neither of these approaches looks to the data
itself. If the database contains new or unexpected knowledge,
neither experience nor the literature will guide us to it, and vital
new insights may easily be missed. The framework outlined in this
paper aims to provide a sound first‑cut analysis of the data, based
on the evidence in the research interviews themselves. Clearly the
literature and research experience have an important role to play in
shaping the results of any research. However this paper argues that
one should proceed only after the data itself has been offered "the
first chance to speak".The node classification matrix detailed here,
identifies distinct node categories, each ranging in significance
and with particular characteristics that reveal key aspects of the
informants' views. In this way the researcher can use the nodes to
reveal the voice of the experts, and build a scientifically rigorous
set of results from a qualitative database.
期刊介绍:
The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (EJBRM) provides perspectives on topics relevant to research methods applied in the field of business and management. Through its publication the journal contributes to the development of theory and practice. The journal accepts academically robust papers that contribute to the area of research methods applied in business and management research. Papers submitted to the journal are double-blind reviewed by members of the reviewer committee or other suitably qualified readers. The Editor reserves the right to reject papers that, in the view of the editorial board, are either of insufficient quality, or are not relevant enough to the subject area. The editor is happy to discuss contributions before submission. The journal publishes work in the categories described below. Research Papers: These may be qualitative or quantitative, empirical or theoretical in nature and can discuss completed research findings or work in progress. Case Studies: Case studies are welcomed illustrating business and management research methods in practise. View Points: View points are less academically rigorous articles usually in areas of controversy which will fuel some interesting debate. Conference Reports and Book Reviews: Anyone who attends a conference or reads a book that they feel contributes to the area of Business Research Methods is encouraged to submit a review for publication.