From Words to Numbers: How to Transform Qualitative Data in to Meaningful

Quantitative Results**

(Katharina J.Srnka, Sabine T.Koeszegi*SBR 59 Jan 2007 29-57)

Presented byHemalatha D

Presented by

Hemalatha D

Agenda

Abstract Introduction Designing qualitative –Quantitative Research Guidelines for generalisation design-Research Conducting integrated qualitative- Quantitative

Research: An exemplary study applying the generalisation design

Summary And Conclusions

Abstract

This paper address the request for discovery- oriented results in the business disciplines.

A generalised model qualitative- quantitative research designs

Implementation

Content Analysis

Demonstration

1.Introduction Development of new theories leads to the total

body of knowledge Acceptance of mixed- methods Target for the “niche” Reasons for absences of Q-Q research

Incommensurability of research paradigms Lack of rigor in qualitative research Missing guidance for systematic combined

qualitative research

2.Designing qualitative-quantitative research Davies (2003), suggests various types of

combined research based on the work of Miller and Crabtree (1994).

Creswell (2003), further developed his earlier work.

Mayring (2001), a methodologist in the field of psychology, outlines four types of Q-Q (mixed) research designs.

2.1 Traditional two studies research designs Sequential design Separate study design

2.2 Integrated qualitative-quantitative methods Q-Q, as a single research process– Elaboration

model. Generalisation design- It accomplishes two goals, (i) provides insight in to the

research problem and thus responds to many calls for discovery – oriented research .

- Assures scientific rigor and allows deriving generalisability from qualitative data.

3.Guidelines for generalisation research design

3.1 A systematic blueprint for systematically analysing qualitative material

In a generalisation design study, qualitative material is inductively explored and then coded.

Applying a systematic procedure, new theory as well as a basis for quantitative analysis can be derived.

The stages during which codeable units and the category scheme are created, reflected the qualitative process of content analysis.

Stages 3 & 4 are time consuming, absorbs energy and resources.

Reiterated by multiple cycles (indicated by back arrows).

The procedure followed in the content analysis of the data often is not explained might cause problems in the validity and reliability of their output.

3.2 Criteria for “Good science’Intersubjectivity of the process of qualitative research and

the results it produces can be afforded by fulfilling the several requirements, (Kleining and Witt 2001),

Systematic design of data collection Structured procedure and documentation of data

analysis Multiple-person involvement and qualitative

checks

3.3 output for qualitative content analysis – Input for quantitative analyses

Qualitative material results in two major final outputs, New theoretical insights-on particular field of

interest It provides coded data used subsequent

quantitative analyses.

4.Conducting integrated Q-Q research:An exemplary study applying the generalisation design

4.1 Research problem, design, and subjects This study explored negotiation process conducted with

the help of electronic negotiation systems (eNS). The aims is to identify, i) To identify and understand

particularities of electronic negotiations. To describe different negotiation behaviour applied by buyers

and sellers in e- negotiations.

The study was embedded in University of Vienna (Austria) & National Sun Yat-sen university, Kaohsiung (Taiwan ROC)

A total of 80 graduates students of business administration participated in the negotiation experiment.

Subjects were paired so that one negotiator was European and the Taiwanese.

The roles (buyer/seller) were assigned randomly.

Based on four issues: price, quality, delivery and payment

Negotiation period – 3 months.

Subjects registered online for the experiment at a website ,where they have to fill in a pre- negotiation questionnaire in which they provided user- specific information.

All communications were logged by the systems.

4.2 Qualitative Analysis: following the stages of the blueprint

S 1&2: Data sourcing and transcription Data was in HTML format Transcription and translation was necessary.

S 3:Unitization Coding of messages and further analysis. Focus on content and various styles of e-com. Chosen thought unit conveys one idea communicated

by the negotiator to the opponent. Coding is based on linguistic studies.

1)intercoder reliability- measures were calculated. Guetzkow’s U- which measures the reliability of

the number of units identified by two independent coders, U= (O1-O2) / (O1+O2)

S 4: Categorisation Deductive- inductive method Bargaining Process Analysis II- to development of

adequate categories. Categories such as, “text-specific units”, ‘private

communication”

Ten auxiliary categories named ‘other’, one representing main category and other nine being sub- categories in each of the other main categories.

Auxiliary categories functioned as “collection tanks”.

Ex: Sarcasm, negative emotions.

Using 56 categories and their sub categories, the two coders independently assigned a single code to each unit.

For main coding round, Cohen’s kappa to check intercoder reliability.

Kappa, suggested by Brennan and Prediger (1981).

Intercoder consistency matrix and applied it to both the main and sub- category, for demonstrative purpose.sss

Stage 5:

To further contribution, again the identified categories has been tested using Grounded theory- approach.

Based on the content of the coded data, 9 categories were condensed in to 3 super-categories: “ negotiation specific”, “communication and “relationship”.

These categories reflect Content, people, and process.

4.3 Quantitative analysis

S 1: Descriptive analysis Frequency analysis of the categories were identified. By applying super- categories developed earlier, resulted in vast

majority of negotiation behaviour is negotiation specific (content specific), 2 relationship categories (people dimension & Communication (Process related.

S 3: Exploratory analysis

Stage 3: Hypothesis development and testing

4.4 Discussion and cross-validation By examining various qualitative procedure of content analysis

with subsequent quantitative analyses, various types of negotiation behaviour, different negotiation styles, as well as particular impact on negotiation success has been evaluated.

Quantitative analysis based on coded data indicates that individuals tend to strategically combine various types of behaviour in to complex negotiation styles. Tactical+ persuasive+ task-oriented behaviour= Offensive

style. It was found that impressive congruence exists when cross-

validating the findings. Negotiation style (eNs) , were able to identify by applying Q- Q

research designs.

5. Summary & Conclusions Discovery-oriented research and dominant paradigm in the business and

management sciences that focused on theory and derived a statistical result. Combination of Q-Q– contributed new theoretical findings. To enrich body of knowledge, good linkage between Q-Q is needed. Generalisation model has been highlighted as a promising research design for

discovery. The blueprint for deductive- inductive procedure which transforms qualitative

data in to quantitative analysis gives a systematic approach. Important issues like quality decisions have been included. The unique things is,

Separation of unitization Categorization Coding as individual stages

These provide a valid and reliable data.

My Views... Irrespective of the field of interest this article

will be a strong support for the research design part.

The professors has shown a systematic approach for a research to be successful.

It creates a strong “motivation” to the reader that if we have strong will towards the accomplishment of the work.......

........nothing can stop as a obstacle.

Best of Luck!!!&

Thank you