This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipal (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 4 December 2007 (→Stustu12's external links: it's very clearly spam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:39, 4 December 2007 by Hipal (talk | contribs) (→Stustu12's external links: it's very clearly spam)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Sociology Stub‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
(Note: this page was redirected to Talk:Qualitative psychological research for some reason not given. Unfortunately, that page is affected by the block-compression problem, so can't be moved. I've therefore moved the contents here by manual cut-and-paste, Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC))
I'm not happy with this article -- I think I failed to be NPOV, and I'm sure the definition of qualitative research could be presented more informatively by someone more versed in the field than I. However, I thought it would be good to have an article for the links in other articles, notably Humanistic psychology, to go to. I've been hoping that the author of that article or someone else from the so-called humanistic school would improve this article, but I've learned not to hold my breath. Trontonian 13:58, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Has anyone ever written anything NPOV anywhere about qualitative research? This article has now become fat and sluggish and needs to be trimmed down. Looks as if no one else's going to di it, either. Not a lot of qualitative researchers on Misplaced Pages, I guess, eh? Trontonian 16:12, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Qualitative research is much improved. Thanks. Trontonian 20:28, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Qualitative analysis (Chemistry)
This section needs either improving, or two new pages.
Qualitative inorganic and organic analysis is totally different (chalk and cheese!).
Adding Silver Nitrate to a solution and seeing a white precipitate would rule out Sodium Nitrate, but it doesn't prove the prescence of Sodium Chloride.
I shall try to write something soon. Jeff Knaggs 22:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and the fact that this talk page has been redirected to Qualitative psychological research definitely shows the need for some new pages. Jeff Knaggs 22:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
non-social science meanings
Non-social science meanings should probably be separated into other articles, since there's no content overlap. Not sure where the information might be merged; maybe those meanings could have their own articles - but they might resemble dicdefs. Rd232 15:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Category
Any comments on pros and cons of creating the Category:Qualitative method?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
reworking of article desperately needed
I recently looked into this article to see if it was worth recommending to a friend who is not in the field of social sciences (whereas I am) to get at least a glimpse of what Qualitative Research is.
This article definitely needs some improvements, right now it does not explain much, and few major developments are simply left out (Grounded Theory is by no means a new invention...), and others are simply wrong (quantitative research does not prove hypotheses, it does try to prove them wrong, and notes the probability of having not found a way to prove the hypotheses wrong, basically speaking) or at least not helpful in understanding qual. research.
Neither the English not the German language version should be left the way it is, and mayhaps they could get rewritten by a group of people who actually work with qualitative research methods and know why they do it?
84.191.160.149 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
This article definitely needs some pictures to relieve the eye. Got any suggestions? 204.52.215.107 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Emphasis Should be Placed on the Social Sciences
In today's usage, "qualitative research" generally applies to the social sciences. All references to the hard sciences should be taken out of the article or delegated to a subsection near the end of the article. Someone who is not familiar with the quantitative and qualitative research approaches might find references to the hard sciences too much to handle and become confused. Remember, sometimes (or oftentimes) people log on to Misplaced Pages to get the broad picture of a topic that interests them. Qualitative researchers from the disciplines of Education, Recreation, Communications, Nursing, Sociology, and last but not least, Anthropology should be invited to take a look at this.
Communication and observation; history
The following is meant as a request for clarification only.
Point 4, in the list at the beginning, about qualitative research depending on communication and observation while quantitative relies on instruments could usefully be clarified. Certainly quantitative research uses communication and observation. If the point is that qualitative observation and communication are unstructured and quantitative structured, then that seems to be the same point as #5.
As for qualitative methods first gaining attention in the 70s, I remember them being hot stuff in the 60s. Certainly participant observation was popular lmg before that. Perhaps some more detail could be added to clarify the statement. John FitzGerald 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Inherently non-mathematical?
The article starts out with stating that qualitative research is about the how and why of decision making, it ends with "Quantitative data is measurable while Qualitative data can not be put into a context that can be graphed or displayed as a mathamatical term."
This does not make sense to me. Decision making can clearly be put into mathematical terms; mathematics concerns itself with a lot more than graphing, displaying and measuring. Behaviour and reasoning can of course be put into mathematical terms; game theory is a good example.
I do not have any formal background in qualitative research, so I have not changed the article, but it's wrong the way it stands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.191.125.90 (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
Qualitative data
The point is just that the data collected in qualitative research is text based, meaning that the data says something about the quality not quantity of a phenomenon. It's not that it can not be quantified but if it is quantified it is no longer a qualitative research method.
Falkoner 11:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, qualitative research can and does employ quantitative techniques. The data collection methods mentioned are just a few of the many used. The fundamental problem with this page is the opening line which provides a terribly shortsighted description, using an example to represent the whole. A better broad description might be "qualitative research aims to describe and understand phenomena whereas quantitative research seeks to measure and predict." 66.90.181.195 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Needing rewording
I removed this sentence because it doesn't really make any sense:
""Qualitative research methods also began at the margins of acceptable science. From Freud on, ... Carl Rogers (1942; 1951) ... Piaget ... Mary Ainsworth (1979).""
If anyone wants to put it back, it needs to be placed in context. dr.alf 11:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Stustu12's external links
I removed the following links per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI. Piotrus restored them, who I don't believe has a COI, but I still think they should be discussed first:
- The Qualitative Data Analysis Program at the University of Pittsburgh - A coding and tool development laboratory.
- The Coding Analysis Toolkit (CAT) developed by the Qualitative Data Analysis Program at the University of Pittsburgh - tools for increasing the reliability and validity of coding and the efficiency of the process.
- Codeshop is a wiki for a fall 2006 NSF-funded workshop "Coding across the Disciplines".
--Ronz 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- The links may be refined further; indeed all three don't belong to the series of articles they were added - but neither was removing a link to Codeshop NSF wiki from Coding (social sciences) and accusing the editor who added it of spamming. The Qualitative Data Analysis Program seems rather relevant here; the two other links - perhaps not. Since you are interested in weeding the elinks in those articles, please do so - but please don't remove everything, and please don't accuse other editors and experienced academics (as User:Stustu12) of spamming. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- The editor added the links and only the links to multiple articles. That is the very definition of spamming. --Ronz 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)