Sis fri 1030 michael holmes

220 views
192 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
220
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The problem in this logic is defining & validating entities & attributes and measuring them reliably
  • Lots of other ways of classifying search types - in as many as 10 types!
  • Especially important in thinking about WOM
  • Sis fri 1030 michael holmes

    1. 1. The importance of qualitative research: knowing what&why<br />Michael Holmes<br />
    2. 2. 2<br />
    3. 3. Web analytics & consumer surveyswon’t drive reinvention<br />3<br />(quant vision)<br />
    4. 4. Getting past assumptionsrequires non-assumptive research<br />4<br />(vision qual quant)<br />
    5. 5. methodological oppositions<br />Quantitative Qualitative<br />Affordable Expensive<br />Numeric Linguistic<br />Ontological Phenomenological<br />Objective Subjective<br />Predictive Descriptive<br />General Special<br />Law of large numbers Law of the example<br />Revealing simplicity Revealing complexity<br />Confirmation Discovery<br />A priori Emergent<br />5<br />
    6. 6. 6<br />Do you think “Millennials don’t care about<br /> online privacy”?<br />www.researchcmd.com/?p=1545<br />
    7. 7. logics of explanation<br />X<br />Y<br />Z<br />variance<br /> things: entities & attributes<br />process<br /> stories: events & sequences<br />1 -> 2 -> 3 ... <br />7<br />c<br />a<br />d<br />network<br /> flows: nodes & links<br />b<br />e<br />
    8. 8. variance logic<br />Automatic Classification of Web Queries<br />Jansen, et al. (2008)<br />note: 75% accuracy rate<br />8<br />
    9. 9. 9<br />
    10. 10. process logic<br />10<br />
    11. 11. Google SearchStories<br />11<br />
    12. 12. network logic<br />12<br />
    13. 13. From demographic<br />and psychographic<br />to sociogramic<br />13<br />
    14. 14. Your logic binds & blinds you whatever your method<br />14<br />
    15. 15. qualitative methods<br />traditional<br />alternative<br />brain scanning<br />eye tracking<br />e-diaries<br />experience sampling<br />auto-ethnography<br />consumer photo essays<br />consumer video essays<br />UGC data mining<br />discourse analysis<br />environmental traces<br />ideation groups<br />ethnomethodology<br />observation<br />1st person diaries, journals, think-aloud protocols, etc.<br />2nd person ethnography, naturalistic field studies, etc.<br />interviews<br />depth interviews<br />focus groups<br />15<br />
    16. 16. evaluating qualitative research<br />coherence<br /> internal validity -> credibility <br />consensus<br /> reliability -> dependability<br /> objectivity -> confirmability<br />instrumental utility<br /> external validity -> transferability <br />16<br />
    17. 17. some non-assumptive ideas about search types<br />17<br />
    18. 18. a common a priori classification <br />Informational search: document target<br />Navigational search: location target<br />Transactional search: task target<br />18<br />But we always search <br />“Because of…” or “In order to…”<br />
    19. 19. vanity search<br />19<br />
    20. 20. Google him/her/me/them<br />20<br />
    21. 21. distracted search<br />from redwing…<br /> …to redwing <br />Photo © 2004 Bill Thomas Woodworking<br />21<br />
    22. 22. novice vs. expert search<br />22<br />
    23. 23. some user-centric search types<br />Forgotten<br />Failed<br />Oops…NSFW<br />Teleport/wormhole<br />Conversation<br />competitive <br />confirmation<br />Searching while… <br />etc.<br />23<br />
    24. 24. Thank you<br />send questions, comments, criticism & defibrillation expense requests to:<br />Michael Holmes<br />mholmes@bsu.edu<br />24<br />

    ×