Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Crabtree, Andy
Format: Preprint
Published: 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01302
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866912257372323840
author Crabtree, Andy
author_facet Crabtree, Andy
contents Concern has recently been expressed by HCI researchers as to the inappropriate treatment of qualitative studies through a positivistic mode of evaluation that places emphasis on metrics and measurement. This contrasts with the nature of qualitative research, which privileges interpretation and understanding over quantification. This paper explains the difference between positivism and interpretivism, the limits of quantification in human science, the distinctive contribution of qualitative research, and how quality assurance might be provided for in the absence of numbers via five basic criteria that reviewers may use to evaluate qualitative studies on their own terms.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2409_01302
institution arXiv
publishDate 2024
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle H is for Human and How (Not) To Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI
Crabtree, Andy
Human-Computer Interaction
Concern has recently been expressed by HCI researchers as to the inappropriate treatment of qualitative studies through a positivistic mode of evaluation that places emphasis on metrics and measurement. This contrasts with the nature of qualitative research, which privileges interpretation and understanding over quantification. This paper explains the difference between positivism and interpretivism, the limits of quantification in human science, the distinctive contribution of qualitative research, and how quality assurance might be provided for in the absence of numbers via five basic criteria that reviewers may use to evaluate qualitative studies on their own terms.
title H is for Human and How (Not) To Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI
topic Human-Computer Interaction
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01302