Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses in Observing Interaction: Misunderstandings, applications and proposals
Augusto Gnisci
Department of Psychology, Second University of Naples, Caserta, Italy
Roger Bakeman
Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta GA, United States of America
Vicenç Quera
Department of Behavioral Science Methods, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
PP: 15 - 30
Abstract
In this contribution we discuss how, when observing social interactions, qualitative and quantitative research can each enrich the other.
First, we highlight the usefulness of qualitative research for subsequent quantitative studies. We also mention some possible misunderstanding in the way qualitative researchers view quantitative research. We discuss criticisms regarding ‘natural' units of analysis, the use of ‘pre-defined' categories, the sequential context, the multifaceted aspect of interaction and the role of transcripts.
Second, we present two research examples - one based on time series graphs, the other on similarity maps - that demonstrate how quantitative analysis can be used to identify points in interaction that require further qualitative analysis (eg particular phases of interaction, critical points such as positive/negative shifts, unique cases).
Keywords
quantitative and qualitative methods, social interaction, observation, coding, units, similarity patterns, critical points, unique cases
Article Text
Observational research of social interaction has been affected profoundly by technology as it has evolved from film, to analog tape, to digital and from expensive and cumbersome to inexpensive and portable recording devices (Bakeman & Gottman 1997). In many disciplines where the study of communication, conversation and social interaction is of concern (eg social psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, linguistics, sociology, ethology), the ability to study social interaction through repeated viewings of video and audio recordings has proven immensely useful (Bull 2002). The consequences for what could be called a revolution in recording technology have been profound for the way we think about human communication (Kendon 1982); this revolution has affected quantitative and qualitative approaches alike (Jacobs, Kawanaba & Stigler 1999). Human interaction is essentially a dynamic process that unfolds in time and technology that allows us not just to view interaction, as we do when viewing live, but to view it repeatedly (literally, to review) has been invaluable to scholars of interaction.
We will discuss quantitative/qualitative issues from our point of view as observational researchers who mainly use quantitative analysis. We will focus on data collection because, in our view, critical issues between qualitative and quantitative approaches are largely concentrated in this research step. For quantitative approaches we will reference mainly our past studies and research (Bakeman 2000; Bakeman & Gnisci 2005; Bakeman & Gottman 1997; Bakeman & Quera 1995a 1995b; Gnisci 2005; Gnisci & Bakeman 2007; Quera, Bakeman & Gnisci 2007) and for qualitative approaches we will reference classical contributions that range from ethnography, ethnomethodology and ethogeny to conversation and discourse analysis (Edwards & Potter 1993; Drew & Heritage 1992; Harré 1979; Harré & Gillett 1994; Harré & Secord 1972; Heritage 1984; Goodwin & Duranti 1992; O'Barr 1982; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974; Schegloff 1993).
Throughout we focus on the uses each approach has for the other. We begin by describing the usefulness of qualitative research for quantitative researchers and then list and discuss some common criticisms qualitative researchers have concerning quantitative research. After having briefly described the quantitative approach to interaction that we pursue, that is sequential analysis, we present two examples of it, which show how the results of quantitative observational research can inform and guide subsequent qualitative research. One is based on time series analysis, the other on similarity maps and both represent concrete possibilities of integration between the two approaches.
References
Argyle M (1967) The psychology of interpersonal behavior. Armondsworth, England: Penguin.
Atkinson JM and Drew P (1979) Order in court. The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Bakeman R (2000) Behavioral observation and coding. In Reis HT and Judd CM (eds) Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, pp.138-159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman R and Brownlee JR (1980) The strategic use of parallel play: A sequential analysis. Child Development 51: 873-878.
Bakeman R and Gnisci A (2005) Sequential observational methods. In Eid M and Dieneer E (eds) Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology, pp.127-140. Washington, DC: APA.
Bakeman R and Gottman JM (1997) Observing interaction. An introduction to sequential analysis 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman R and Quera V (1995a) Log-linear approaches to lag-sequential analysis when consecutive codes may and cannot repeat. Psychological Bulletin 118: 272-284.
Bakeman R and Quera V (1995b) Analyzing interaction. Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bakhtin M (1986) The problem of speech genres. In Emerson C and Holquist M (eds) Speech genres and other late essay. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bales RF (1950) Interaction process analysis. A method for the study of small groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bavelas JB, Black A, Chovil N and Mullett J (1990) Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bearison DJ and Dorval B (with LeBlanc G, Sadow A and Plesa D and Commentary by Stetsenko A) (2001) Collaborative cognition: Children negotiating ways of knowing. Westport, CN: Ablex.
Billig M (1999) Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in Conversation Analysis. Discourse and Society 10: 543-558.
Brown P and Levinson SC (1978) Universal in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody E (ed) Questions and politeness, pp.56-310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown P and Levinson SC (1987) Politeness: Some universal in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bull P (1994) On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13: 115-131.
Bull P (2002) Communication under the microscope. The theory and the practice of microanalysis. London: Routledge.
Bull P (2003) The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London: Routledge.
Bull P and Elliott J (1998) Level of threat: Means of assessing interviewer toughness and neutrality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17: 220-244.
Bull P and Mayer K (1993) How not to answer questions in political interview. Political Psychology 4: 651-666.
Bull P, Elliott J, Palmer D and Walker L (1996) Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology 35: 267-284.
Church KW and Helfman JI (1993) Dotplot: A program for exploring self-similarity in millions of lines of text and code. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 2(2): 153-174.
Dawson TL, Fisher KW and Stein Z (2006) Reconsidering qualitative and quantitative research approaches: A cognitive developmental perspective. New Ideas in Psychology 24: 229-239.
Drew P and Heritage J (1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P Drew and J Heritage (eds) Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, pp.3-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eckmann JP, Kamphorst SO and Ruelle D (1987) Recurrence plots of dynamical systems. Europhysics Letters 5: 973-977.
Edwards D and Potter J (1992) Discursive psychology. London: SAGE.
Edwards D and Potter J (1993) Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review 100: 23-41.
Edwards D and Potter J (1999) Language and causal attribution: A rejoinder to Schmid and Fiedler. Theory and Psychology 9: 823-836.
Eid M and Diener E (2006) Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gnisci A (2005) Sequential strategies of accommodation: A new method in courtroom. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4): 621-643.
Gnisci A (2008) Coercive and face-threatening questions to left-wing and right-wing politicians during two Italian broadcasts: Conversational indexes of par conditio for democracy systems. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38(5) (in press).
Gnisci A and Bakeman R (2007) Sequential accommodation of turn taking and turn length: A study of courtroom interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9(26): 234-259.
Goffman E (1955) On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18: 213-31. Reprinted in (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior, pp.5-45. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Goffman E (1971) Relations in public. Microstudies of the public order. London: Penguin Press.
Goodwin C and Duranti A (eds) (1992) Rethinking context. Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gottman JM (1979) Marital interaction. Experimental investigations. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Gottman JM (1983) How children becomes friends. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 48(3).
Harré R (1979) Social being. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harré R and Gillett G (1994) The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Harré R and Secord P (1972) The explanation of social behavior. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Heritage J (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Heyns RW and Lippitt R (1954) Systematic observational techniques. In Handbook of social psychology. Theory and method (chap 10) Vol 1. London: Addison-Wesley.
Jacobs JK, Kawanaba T and Stigler JW (1999) Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to the analysis of video data on classroom teaching. International Journal of Educational Research 31: 717-724.
Jefferson G (1984) On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In Atkinson JM and Heritage JC (eds) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, pp.347-369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson G (1985) On the interactional unpackaging of a ‘gloss'. Language and Society 14: 435-466.
Jucker J (1986) News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam: Gieben.
Kendon A (1982) Organization of behaviour in face to face interaction. In Scherer KR and Ekman P (eds) Handbook of methods in nonverbal behaviour research 26: 22-63.
Lewin K (1938) The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces. Contributions to Psychological Theory 1.
Lewin K (1944) Constructs in psychology and psychological ecology. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare 20: 17-21.
Linell P, Gustavsson L and Juvonen P (1988) Interactional dominance in dyadic communication: a presentation of iniziative-response analysis. Linguistic 26: 415-142.
Mey I (2001) The CA/CDA controversy. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 609-615.
Muntigl P and Turnbull W (1998) Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 225-256.
O'Barr WM and Lind EA (1981) Ethnography and experimentation-Partners in legal research. In Sales BD (ed) Perspectives in law and psychology: The trial process, pp.181-208. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
O'Barr WM (1982) Linguistic evidence: Language power and strategy in the courtroom. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Parten MB (1932) Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 27: 243-269.
Peräkylä A (2004) Two traditions of interaction research. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43: 1-20.
Psathas G (1995) Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Psathas G and Anderson T (1990) The ‘practices' of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica 78: 75-99.
Quera V (2008) RAP: A computer program for exploring similarities in behavior sequences using random projections. Behavior Research Methods 40: 21-32.
Quera V, Bakeman R and Gnisci A (2007) Observer agreement for event sequences: Methods and software for sequence alignment and reliability estimates. Behavior Research Methods 39: 39-49.
Reis HT and Judd CM (Eds) (2000) Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roger DB, Bull PE and Smith S (1988) The development of a comprehensive system for classifying interruptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7: 27-34.
Rosenblum L (1978) The creation of a behavioral taxonomy. In Sackets GP (ed) Observing behavior 2: Data collection and analysis methods, pp.15-24. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Sacks H, Schegloff E and Jefferson G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 4: 696-735.
Schegloff EA (1993) Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1): 99-128.
Schegloff EA (1997) Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society 8: 165-187.
Semin GR and Fiedler K (1988) The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 558-568.
Semin GR and Fiedler K (1991) The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. In Stroebe W and Hewstone M (eds) European Review of Social Psychology 2: 1-50.
Smith ML (1994) Qualitative plus/versus quantitative: The last word. In Reichardt CS and Rallis SF (eds) The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives, pp.37-44. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith PK (1978) A longitudinal study of social participation in preschool children: Solitary and parallel play reexamined. Developmental Psychology 14: 517-523.
Stevens SS (1946) On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103: 677-680.
eContent Home
