Can you explain qualitative research?

i am doing my undergraduate thesis.. i plan to do a qualitative research, but i am still having a hard time grasping the interpretational view of communication.

Can you explain qualitative research?
more info! I just completed my senior research project in psychology and I also worked with qualitative data while replicating a study done by Bartlett. I'm very interested and I can help. I know of some good resources, but tell me more: what's your hypothesis that you will be testing or have you not gotten that far yet???





Okay, here's my paper that I uploaded for ya and I give an analysis of both the qualitative (pictures and figures) and quantitative (numbers) of my results.


Familiar and Unfamiliar Forms


Elysia


Advanced Research and Design


12-12-2006


Serial Reproduction:


Familiar and Unfamiliar Forms


Frederic Bartlett makes the claim that familiarity of stimulus material affects a


person’s ability to reproduce drawings accurately in his book Remembering, published in


1932. Bartlett used the process of serial reproduction to illustrate this point. Upon giving


subjects a picture of an Egyptian Mulak to replicate from memory, the stimulus material


undergoes several remarkable transformations, resulting in an end drawing a cat; a


socially recognizable form.


Several researchers have attempted to reproduce Bartlett’s results, but have been


unable to obtain statistically significant data. There are several reasons for the


differences in Bartlett’s results and current researcher’s results. V.E. Wynn and R.H.


Logie state in their article, The Veracity of Long Term Memories-Did Bartlett get it


right?, that, “…no attempt appears to have been made to test his subjects in any


recognizable methodological way,” (pg.2). Bartlett did not exercise control over


confounding variables, did not establish a control group of socially recognizable forms,


did not provide all of his results—only a small selection of the best ones, and failed to


establish an objective, quantitative measure of transformations.


The failure of researchers to replicate Bartlett’s results baffles many


supporters of his theory that memory is a constructive process. O.L. Zangwill, a research


student of Bartlett’s, writes that the factual results of Bartlett’s studies have stood up to


the test of time and that very few people call them into question (Zangwill, pg. 127).


Zangwill concedes that others like Harry Kay (1995) have stated that remembering is


better described as an abstractive process, though recent researchers have not made a full


shift back to calling it a reproduction rather than a reconstruction (Zangwill, pg. 129).


This study’s design replicates Bartlett’s design with a few important additions.


In order to expand on Bartlett’s work, this current study will establish a control group,


control for confounding variables and provide for both a qualitative and quantitative


analysis.


Although extensive research has been done on the aspects of transmission of stories,


almost no research has been published on the transmission of pictures. Upon doing a


qualitative and quantitative analysis, the conclusions drawn from this current study based


on the stimulus picture of an Egyptian Mulak may possibly resemble Bartlett’s


conclusions that


1.Sooner or later all such material tends to assume the form of accepted


conventional representations, or decorative designs, current in the group of subjects


concerned. 2. When material is presented which seems to a subject to be


representative, but cannot be definitely labeled, it tends to undergo elaboration until a


readily recognizable form is produced. 3. Another common characteristic is the


multiplication of detain which is not readily assimilated or of motif in decorated


desing. 4. When a readily recognizable form is presented, this tends to undergo


simplification into a genuinely conventionalized representation or design. Suhc


simplification may proceed too far, when a new process of elaboration is apt to set in,


resulting in the development of a representative form apparently unconnected with


the original. 5. Naming, it may be of the whole, or it may be of the parts, strongly


affects reproduction whether immediate or remote. When counting is used, order and


number may be preserved, though the form may be altered. 6. There is a strong


tendency to preserve apparently trivial or disconnect detail of non-representative


character or in a non-representative setting (1995, pg. 185).


The purpose of this current study is to determine if the familiarity of the stimulus


picture affects the number of transformations subjects make in reproducing the stimulus.


The hypothesis is that the unfamiliar picture of the Egyptian Mulak will undergo


significantly more transformations than the familiar picture of a rat will. The independent


variable in this study is the familiarity of the picture and the dependent variable is the


number of transformation made by the subjects.


Method


Participants


The sample of participants included 15 undergraduate male and female students


enrolled in a psychology course at Aquinas College. Demographically, the participants


selected were similar in age and race to the typical traditional students enrolled at


Aquinas College.


Apparatus


Materials used were two drawings, one of an Egyptian Mulak, the other of a rat.


Other materials used were a stop watch, thirty blank pieces of paper, fifteen cover sheets


and pencils.


Procedure


Fifteen subjects were given a subject number from one to fifteen. Subjects were


given a copy of the following instructions and were instructed to read the instructions


quietly to themselves as the experimenter read them aloud.


You are participating in an experiment that tests your drawing ability. You will


be given a picture. Look at the picture for 30 seconds and try your best to “memorize” it.


After your 30 seconds are up, place the picture underneath the cover sheet provided so


that you cannot see the picture any more. Keep this picture underneath the coversheet


until the experiment is over.


You will have 1 minute to draw the picture that you have memorized. Draw your


picture to look exactly like the picture that you memorized. Draw your picture on the


paper provided, using the pencil provided.


Once you have completed your drawing, hand the drawing to the person next in


line. That person will have 30 seconds to look at your drawing, place it under their cover


sheet, and then they will spend 1 minute drawing your picture from their memory.


Do not show anyone the picture underneath your cover sheet. Do not let your


neighbors see your picture while you are drawing it. Do not discuss the pictures with


anyone while the experiment is in progress. You may talk quietly during this experiment,


but do not discuss any aspect of this experiment with anyone.


Follow these same instructions for the second picture you are given to draw. At


the end of the experiment, you should have in your possession, two drawings that were


given to you to draw, placed underneath your cover sheet. The experimenter will pick up


these drawings from you.


To control for interference, half of the subject replicated the Egyptian Mulak first


and half of the subjects replicated the rat first.


The drawings were analyzed using a system of measurement to count


transformations in each picture. Both sets of initial stimulus material had fourteen


components and received a score of zero. Each transformation was counted only one


time and each transformation counted as a positive one point towards the reproduction’s


score. Total transformations were added for each reproduction and each reproduction


received a score based on the number of transformations made in that reproduction.


Transformations guidelines were as follows; Elaborations are defined as the


addition of a new line that was not in the previous drawing, simplifications are defined as


the subtraction of a line that was in the previous drawing, mutations consist of directional


changes in a feature as well as changes towards the direction of accepted conventional


representations. Each of these kinds of transformations were weighted equally and


received a score of one point.


Results


The qualitative data that are the secondary focus of this study were collected


through four different individual’s subjective assessments of the changes in the Egyptian


Mulak and rat series. The four individuals selected included two psychology professors


at Aquinas College and two undergraduate students, all of whom were familiar with the


study. Providing a qualitative analysis of the series provides the advantage of the


following the procedure of the initial study being replicated as closely as possible, as well


as allowing for the judgment of the reproductions as a whole, instead of by the individual


lines and features that they are composed of. All four assessments were collected on


separate occasions and all indicated that the rat stayed truer to form than the Egyptian


Mulak did.





Figure 1Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5


Figures didn't show up: but they would be QUALITATIVE DATA


Figures 1-5 illustrate the qualitative results obtained from this study. Figures 1 and 2 are from the Egyptian Mulak Series and Figures 3-5 are from the Rat Series.


The quantitative data that are the primary focus of this study were collected using


the guidelines for transformations and the method described previusly in this article.


The mean for each series was calculated. The mean for the Egyptian Mulak series is 1.87


and the mean for the Rat series is 1.27. A single subject set with two comparisons,


between subjects design and less than 5% of scores deviating less than 2 from the mean


provided the appropriate conditions for a paired t-test. There were no significant


differences in the amount of transformations in Egyptian Mulak series and rat series,


p = .297.


Discussion:


Although the Egyptian Mulak appears to make more transformations than the rat,


when quantifying transformations, the Mulak does not make significantly more


transformations than the rat does. The end picture of the Mulak resembles a pitcher or a


cup while the end picture of the rat resembles a cat. Even though the pictures undergo


similar amounts of transformations, according to the qualitative analysis, the rat picture


stays truer to the original drawing than the Mulak does.


Several things can be said about this study. Since both the rat and the Mulak


underwent several transformations, the study is non-supportive of the Trace Theory of


Memory, but is supportive of a constructionist model. These models state that


individuals construct their replication of the stimulus from the parts of the stimulus that


they remember as well as from pieces of information and images previously stored in


their memories. Such a model was favored by Bartlett in his book Remembering and


other theories include descriptions of memory as a constructive process, such as Schema


Theories.


The study is also non-supportive of the social implications that others who have


replicated Bartlett’s studies have attempted to find. Since the Egyptian Mulak does not


make significantly more transformations than the rat, the idea that familiar things are


remebered with more ease and replicated more exactly cannot be supported with


evidence from this study.


Potential problems with this study that should be addressed include the questions


of whether or not counting transformations is a valid measure of change in serial


reproduction and whether qualitative analysis is valid. A second issue that should be


looked into is whether or not the subjects’ familiarity with the process of serial


reproduction influences their reproductions.


More research needs to be done and changes need to be made before any


conclusions can be made about the theoretical implications of this type of study


supporting a memory model or supporting the theory that familiar objects are easier to


draw and reproduced more accurately, according to cultural/societal influences on


memory.


References


Bartlett, F. C. (1995). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1932)


Johnston, E. B. (2001, January). The repeated reproduction of Bartlett’s remembering. History of Psychology, 4(4), 341-366.


Logie, R. H., %26amp; Wynn, V. E. (1997, June). The veracity of long-term memories-Did Bartlett get it right? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 1-20.


Lyons, A., %26amp; Kashima, Y. (2006, January). Maintaining stereotypes in communication: Investingating memory biases and coherence-seeking in storytelling. Asain Journal of Social Psychology, 9(1), 59-71.


Ost, J., %26amp; Costall, A. (2002, May). Misremembering Bartlett: A study in serial reproduction. British Journal of Psychology, 93(1), 243-255.


Zangwill, O. L. (1972, January). Remembering revisited. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24(1), 123-138.