NYT story on academic facebook research
Hi, I was also quoted in both the WaPo and the NYTimes pieces. I enjoyed speaking with both reporters, but like others was somewhat disappointed by Monica's particular angle in the WaPo article. In addition to the general tone, I found it unfortunate to be misquoted. (I can't imagine I would've said that in two years "we may not even call these things social networks." since I didn't talk to her about social networks in general nor would I have said what she quotes me as saying if I had. I spoke to her about social network sites in particular, two concepts that are unfortunate to confuse.) Mary-Helen mentioned earlier that journalists seem to feel more comfortable discussing quantitative results. That comment made me chuckle. If you only knew how much time I (and I suspect others in similar shoes) spend explaining relatively simple statistical findings to journalists only to have the results misrepresented in the end you would not make that assumption. I suspect it's just another case where that comment about journalists' coverage of other areas applies: if it's not your specialty you're more likely to think they cover it well.:-} Eszter http://www.eszter.com
At 8:04 Uhr -0600 17.12.2007, Eszter Hargittai wrote:
Mary-Helen mentioned earlier that journalists seem to feel more comfortable discussing quantitative results. That comment made me chuckle. If you only knew how much time I (and I suspect others in similar shoes) spend explaining relatively simple statistical findings to journalists only to have the results misrepresented in the end you would not make that assumption.
Hi Eszter, all, it may well be that journalists feel more comfortable discussing quantitative results precisely *because* they often misunderstand them... I regularly show examples from newspapers to students in my classes where research is distorted, miscited, condensed to false statements, shortened to meaningless phrases or in other ways hurt. For example, I rarely see correct descriptions of correlational research - most incorrectly imply causation without a cautious note or even a discussion of alternative explanations. Anyhow: congrats on being mentioned in these important media! Despite all problems, these are still some of the best. Cheers --u -- PD Dr. Ulf-Dietrich Reips Universität Zürich Psychologisches Institut Binzmühlestr. 14/13 8050 Zürich, Switzerland iScience portal: http://psych-iscience.unizh.ch/ Publications: http://tinyurl.com/98qay
Fair enough! However, I, and other qualitative researchers I meet with at the University, have observed over some time that (at least in Australia) journalists find it easier to ignore or poke fun at qualitative research than at statistically-based material. If there are what they consider 'figures' to hang a story on they seem much more comfortable even if they don't interpret them well. Interesting, they don't seem to see their own backgrounders and feature articles in which they canvass opinion, mash it up and report it, often really well, as qualitative research. M-H On 18/12/07 1:04 AM, "Eszter Hargittai" <info@webuse.org> wrote:
Mary-Helen mentioned earlier that journalists seem to feel more comfortable discussing quantitative results. That comment made me chuckle. If you only knew how much time I (and I suspect others in similar shoes) spend explaining relatively simple statistical findings to journalists only to have the results misrepresented in the end you would not make that assumption. I suspect it's just another case where that comment about journalists' coverage of other areas applies: if it's not your specialty you're more likely to think they cover it well.:-}
Ah this is all true. Back when I was in journalism school, I remember a single class we had on "numbers." We were tasked with using calculators to decipher the "validity" of fake press releases. Statistical significance? No sir, we did not study that! Probably because our journalism professors and future editors don't understand statistics. We did do "interviewing," which I must say, was much much better training than any interview methods I learned in graduate school. Upon my entry into graduate school, I recall being shocked at how common qualitative research was. I had thought it inferior because it didn't have statistical significance (I had done my own studying beyond the proscribed journalism curriculum). I wondered how all these academics get off on saying they do "valid" research when they had sample sizes as small as 10! Imagine! Of course it took me awhile, but I learned how qualitative validity works. Most people, journalists or not, have no idea how qualitative validity works, and have only a passing understanding of quantitative validity (something vaguely to do with "sample size" they imagine). On Dec 17, 2007 3:32 PM, Mary-Helen Ward <mhward@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
Fair enough!
However, I, and other qualitative researchers I meet with at the University, have observed over some time that (at least in Australia) journalists find it easier to ignore or poke fun at qualitative research than at statistically-based material. If there are what they consider 'figures' to hang a story on they seem much more comfortable even if they don't interpret them well. Interesting, they don't seem to see their own backgrounders and feature articles in which they canvass opinion, mash it up and report it, often really well, as qualitative research.
M-H
On 18/12/07 1:04 AM, "Eszter Hargittai" <info@webuse.org> wrote:
Mary-Helen mentioned earlier that journalists seem to feel more comfortable discussing quantitative results. That comment made me chuckle. If you only knew how much time I (and I suspect others in similar shoes) spend explaining relatively simple statistical findings to journalists only to have the results misrepresented in the end you would not make that assumption. I suspect it's just another case where that comment about journalists' coverage of other areas applies: if it's not your specialty you're more likely to think they cover it well.:-}
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
On Monday 17 December 2007, you wrote:
Of course it took me awhile, but I learned how qualitative validity works.
Would you be willing to point me to a reference or summarize your understanding? My understanding from [1,2] makes me think it is not an easy issue for the discipline, to say nothing of journalists! :) But I'd like to hear your take. [1]:http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php [2]:http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html
participants (5)
-
Eszter Hargittai -
Joseph Reagle -
Mary-Helen Ward -
Sam Ladner -
Ulf-Dietrich Reips