Re: Air-l digest - Number Fetishism
Dear Alex Kuskis, dear colleagues, thank you very much for enlighting us about the difference between quantitative and qualitative research. I always had the impression that both could learn from each other and that the method should be chosen that fits best to the research problem and to what kind of insights one is looking for. Now I know better. I especially like the sentence "There are two main types of user research: quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (insights). Quant has quaint advantages, but qualitative delivers the best results for the least money. Furthermore, quantitative studies are often too narrow to be useful and are sometimes directly misleading. " I think this is a very fair and well-elaborated summary that should finish the whole academic discussion that went on during the last decades. Things can be so easy. ;-) Thank you once more, Alex. Kind regards, Uwe PS: I wonder whether this is the spirit of the next AIR conference in Sussex? After Toronto, I get more and more a strange feeling. Is this the culture clash between cultural studies against science? I wouldn't like that. On 4 Mar 04, at 12:01, air-l-request@aoir.org wrote:
Message: 3 From: "Alex Kuskis" <akuskis@ican.net> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Air-l] Number Fetishism Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org
This is for our friend from Oz who is so keen on quantitative
analysis
to the exclusion of all else.........Alex Kuskis Alertbox, March 1, 2004: Risks of Quantitative Studies Summary: Number fetishism leads usability studies astray by focusing on statistical analyses that are often false, biased, misleading, or overly narrow. Better to emphasize insights and qualitative research. There are two main types of user research: quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (insights). Quant has quaint advantages, but qualitative delivers the best results for the least money. Furthermore, quantitative studies are often too narrow to be useful and are sometimes directly misleading.
======================================= Uwe Matzat Sociology Section Sub-Department of Technology and Policy Department of Technology Management Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands phone: +31 40 247-8392 email: u.matzat@tm.tue.nl http://www.tue-tm-soc.nl/~matzat/ =======================================
So it's all clear now. But what's this?
"There are two main types of user research: quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (insights). Quant has quaint advantages, but qualitative delivers the best results for the least money. Furthermore, quantitative studies are often too narrow to be useful and are sometimes directly misleading. "
"best results for the least money" - that wouldn't be a quantitative measure would it? ;-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Uwe Matzat" <u.matzat@tm.tue.nl> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 10:37 AM Subject: [Air-l] Re: Air-l digest - Number Fetishism
Dear Alex Kuskis, dear colleagues,
thank you very much for enlighting us about the difference between quantitative and qualitative research. I always had the impression that both could learn from each other and that the method should be chosen that fits best to the research problem and to what kind of insights one is looking for.
Now I know better. I especially like the sentence
"There are two main types of user research: quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (insights). Quant has quaint advantages, but qualitative delivers the best results for the least money. Furthermore, quantitative studies are often too narrow to be useful and are sometimes directly misleading. "
I think this is a very fair and well-elaborated summary that should finish the whole academic discussion that went on during the last decades. Things can be so easy. ;-)
Thank you once more, Alex.
Kind regards, Uwe
PS: I wonder whether this is the spirit of the next AIR conference in Sussex? After Toronto, I get more and more a strange feeling. Is this the culture clash between cultural studies against science? I wouldn't like that.
On 4 Mar 04, at 12:01, air-l-request@aoir.org wrote:
Message: 3 From: "Alex Kuskis" <akuskis@ican.net> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Air-l] Number Fetishism Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org
This is for our friend from Oz who is so keen on quantitative
analysis
to the exclusion of all else.........Alex Kuskis Alertbox, March 1, 2004: Risks of Quantitative Studies Summary: Number fetishism leads usability studies astray by focusing on statistical analyses that are often false, biased, misleading, or overly narrow. Better to emphasize insights and qualitative research. There are two main types of user research: quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (insights). Quant has quaint advantages, but qualitative delivers the best results for the least money. Furthermore, quantitative studies are often too narrow to be useful and are sometimes directly misleading.
======================================= Uwe Matzat Sociology Section Sub-Department of Technology and Policy Department of Technology Management Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands phone: +31 40 247-8392 email: u.matzat@tm.tue.nl http://www.tue-tm-soc.nl/~matzat/ =======================================
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
Dear all, Couldn't help but to cheer on Uwe. Enlighten me if you may, is the strong opposition between qualit-quantit an anglo-american thing? Why is it that my own (Estonian) beliefs are so similar to Uwe's (or to those that they used to be)? And why is it, that we tend to take the worst exaples of anything to build up a critique? Not only in this case, but (I hope I am not opening a can of worms here) in case of technologial determinism vs social constructivism? Just couldn't hold my fingers here. Pille Vengerfeldt PhD student, Dep of Journalism and Communications University of Tartu Estonia
----- Original Message ----- From: "Uwe Matzat" <u.matzat@tm.tue.nl> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 10:37 AM Subject: [Air-l] Re: Air-l digest - Number Fetishism
Dear Alex Kuskis, dear colleagues,
thank you very much for enlighting us about the difference between quantitative and qualitative research. I always had the impression that both could learn from each other and that the method should be chosen that fits best to the research problem and to what kind of insights one is looking for.
Now I know better. I especially like the sentence
"There are two main types of user research: quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (insights). Quant has quaint advantages, but qualitative delivers the best results for the least money. Furthermore, quantitative studies are often too narrow to be useful and are sometimes directly misleading. "
I think this is a very fair and well-elaborated summary that should finish the whole academic discussion that went on during the last decades. Things can be so easy. ;-)
Thank you once more, Alex.
Kind regards, Uwe
PS: I wonder whether this is the spirit of the next AIR conference in Sussex? After Toronto, I get more and more a strange feeling. Is this the culture clash between cultural studies against science? I wouldn't like that.
On 4 Mar 04, at 12:01, air-l-request@aoir.org wrote:
Message: 3 From: "Alex Kuskis" <akuskis@ican.net> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Air-l] Number Fetishism Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org
This is for our friend from Oz who is so keen on quantitative
analysis
to the exclusion of all else.........Alex Kuskis Alertbox, March 1, 2004: Risks of Quantitative Studies Summary: Number fetishism leads usability studies astray by focusing on statistical analyses that are often false, biased, misleading, or overly narrow. Better to emphasize insights and qualitative research. There are two main types of user research: quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (insights). Quant has quaint advantages, but qualitative delivers the best results for the least money. Furthermore, quantitative studies are often too narrow to be useful and are sometimes directly misleading.
======================================= Uwe Matzat Sociology Section Sub-Department of Technology and Policy Department of Technology Management Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands phone: +31 40 247-8392 email: u.matzat@tm.tue.nl http://www.tue-tm-soc.nl/~matzat/ =======================================
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
Sveiks, Pille (That's Latvian for howdy!) I guess this Canadian would be lumped in with the "anglo-American" crowd, despite not being born to it. My Latvian parents were likely neighbours of your Estonian ones. I don't think there is such a strong opposition here to the quant-qual duality. Rather, it's an opposition to the unqualified assertion of the superiority of one or the other. And, the qual folks have had to struggle for so long against assertions of second-rateness, emanating from some of the quant crowd, that some have a bit of a chip on their shoulders. I think that most researchers appreciate the need for both........Alex Kuskis Associate Faculty Distributed Learning & Applied Communication Royal Roads University Victoria, british Columbia, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pille Vengerfeldt" <pille@meso.ee> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: Air-l digest - Number Fetishism
Dear all,
Couldn't help but to cheer on Uwe. Enlighten me if you may, is the strong opposition between qualit-quantit an anglo-american thing?
Why is it that my own (Estonian) beliefs are so similar to Uwe's (or to those that they used to be)?
And why is it, that we tend to take the worst exaples of anything to build up a critique? Not only in this case, but (I hope I am not opening a can of worms here) in case of technologial determinism vs social constructivism?
Just couldn't hold my fingers here.
Pille Vengerfeldt PhD student, Dep of Journalism and Communications University of Tartu Estonia
----- Original Message ----- From: "Uwe Matzat" <u.matzat@tm.tue.nl> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 10:37 AM Subject: [Air-l] Re: Air-l digest - Number Fetishism
Dear Alex Kuskis, dear colleagues,
thank you very much for enlighting us about the difference between quantitative and qualitative research. I always had the impression that both could learn from each other and that the method should be chosen that fits best to the research problem and to what kind of insights one is looking for.
Now I know better. I especially like the sentence
"There are two main types of user research: quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (insights). Quant has quaint advantages, but qualitative delivers the best results for the least money. Furthermore, quantitative studies are often too narrow to be useful and are sometimes directly misleading. "
I think this is a very fair and well-elaborated summary that should finish the whole academic discussion that went on during the last decades. Things can be so easy. ;-)
Thank you once more, Alex.
Kind regards, Uwe
PS: I wonder whether this is the spirit of the next AIR conference in Sussex? After Toronto, I get more and more a strange feeling. Is this the culture clash between cultural studies against science? I wouldn't like that.
On 4 Mar 04, at 12:01, air-l-request@aoir.org wrote:
Message: 3 From: "Alex Kuskis" <akuskis@ican.net> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Air-l] Number Fetishism Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org
This is for our friend from Oz who is so keen on quantitative
analysis
to the exclusion of all else.........Alex Kuskis Alertbox, March 1, 2004: Risks of Quantitative Studies Summary: Number fetishism leads usability studies astray by focusing on statistical analyses that are often false, biased, misleading, or overly narrow. Better to emphasize insights and qualitative research. There are two main types of user research: quantitative (statistics) and qualitative (insights). Quant has quaint advantages, but qualitative delivers the best results for the least money. Furthermore, quantitative studies are often too narrow to be useful and are sometimes directly misleading.
======================================= Uwe Matzat Sociology Section Sub-Department of Technology and Policy Department of Technology Management Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands phone: +31 40 247-8392 email: u.matzat@tm.tue.nl http://www.tue-tm-soc.nl/~matzat/ =======================================
participants (4)
-
Alex Kuskis -
Derek Parkinson -
Pille Vengerfeldt -
Uwe Matzat