Analyzing Quantitative Behavioral Observation †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Analyzing Quantitative Behavioral Observation. Answer: Introduction: The theme of curiosity was primary in the whole interview. It is apparent that the same questionnaires were not used in the whole interview(Panneerselvam, 2015). Such is apparent in the way the questions were put across. When the interviewer is curious, he or she tries all he or she can so as to retrieve detailed information from the subjects. Such can be demonstrated by changing the questions into a way that they fit the type of the subject but provide the same results. The theme of Curiosity commanded the whole process and led to detailed inquiry and consistency. The detailed inquiry was evident in the process of asking questions to the interviewees. The best way to know if an interviewer is interested in detailed information, he or she does not leave any information out(Liamputtong, 2013). For example, in the process of interviewing, it was evident that some interviewees either did not understand the interviewee or did not have the answers to the questions. However, since the interviewer needed detailed information, the interviewer made sure that the interviewee understood the questions so as to answer them correctly(Smith, 2015). If the interviewer were not interested in detailed information, he or she would not have been so keen on the information provided; whenever the interviewee proved not to understand a question, the interviewer would have just moved on to the next question. The theme of consistency was evident in the way all the interviews were carried out. In the process of interviewing the subject, it was evident that the interviewer made sure to obtain specific information from the interviewees(Holmes, 2015). In some instances, the interviewer did not ask the same questions. However, what stood out is that the interviewer was aiming at different answers but using different strategies. For example, in the first and the second interview, it is evident that the interviewer was not interviewing people who worked in the same organization. Such was evident through the type of answers that the interviewees provided. The first interviewee was consistent and would answer questions without hesitation. However, the second interviewee was reluctant and in some cases did not know what to answer(Suen, H.K., and Ary, D., 2014). However, the interviewer did not skip the questions; the interviewer made sure that the questions were asked but in the same way to make su re that there was consistency in the data that would be collected. There are different methods which played a significant role in analyzing the data. The two main methods used in analyzing the data were typology and constant comparison. In typology, the use of different patterns, as well as themes, was used. For example, it was realized that the interviewer used specific patterns to carry out the interviews(Glesne, 2015). There were specific questions that were first asked. The questions would only change if the subject proved not to understand the questions well(Panneerselvam, 2015). However, despite the subject proving not to understand the questions, the interviewer made sure that the pattern of asking the questions was changed, but the pattern of acquiring data was not interfered with at all. The constant comparison came in place to analyze the questions as well as the answers. The method was utilized in the following way. The data provided by the subjects was taken and compared with the data that was provided by other subjects. For example, the data of the first subject would be compared with the data of the second subject(Flick, 2015). Such led to knowing the different and understanding the data well. At the same time, the questions asked to the first subject were taken and compared with the questions that were asked to the second subject. Comparison helped in knowing the type of data that would be reliable and such would be known through the questions asked as well as the way the questions were answers. By looking at the different interviews, it is apparent that there was a lot to be compared. There are advantages that came with comparing the data. The first advantage was looking at the interview that was conducted in a more thorough way. By having such information, it was easy to know if there were biases in the whole process or not. At the same time, comparison was used in the process of looking at the response of the interviewees. It is evident that different interviewees provided different information. However, such was due to different approaches. The interviewer can however not be blamed for that because the interviewees proved that their level of processing information was different. It is evident that there were no specific research questions; however, there are many points to learn and observe from the whole process. One of the points is the fact that the method which was used in acquiring the data was effective. The reason why it was effective is that it was enduring, flexible, and straight forward. As far as the issue of enduring is concerned, the questions proved that they would give the subjects a margin of error(Bernard, H.R., Wutich, A. and Ryan, G.W, 2016). A good example is seen when a subject does not have a definite answer. Instead of skipping the question, the question is changed into a way that the subject can understand better. At the same time, it was apparent that the questions did not only need a specific answer; the subjects were free to give their answers(Brinkmann, 2014). In research, biases are eliminated when the questions are not twisted in a way that the subjects must provide a specific answer. The questions were also not complicated. For example, there was a common question asking about the history of the organization. Such information is straight forward, and one is supposed to have the information in his or her mind when he or she is working for an organization. The themes utilized in the whole process helped in gathering credible information. The fact that the interviewer was so focused on making sure that he or she only gets information which is relevant to the research affected the findings of the interview. It was evident that different methods of questioning provide different types of information(Cohen, 2014). For example, in the first interview, the interviewer was straight forward with the interviewee, and the same case was evident in the second interview. However, it was not easy to gather the same information by using the same questions. The first subject was understanding and answered questioned without difficulties. However, the second subject was hesitating and could not answer the same questions fast. However, when the interviewer changed the perspective, it was apparent that the second interviewer provided more details to the interviewee and that had an effect on the way the interviewee responded to the questions. By analyzing the data, there were different observations. Most of the observations were associated with the interviewees. The first observation was that different people interpret information differently. There are factors that support the claim. The interviewer wanted to use the same questions but it is evident that the interviewees had a different way of processing the questions. Such led to the interviewer editing and redrafting some of the questions. At the same time, it was observed that people take different amount of time to respond to questions. In this case, the accuracy or inaccuracy of the a nswers does not factor in; what matters is how much time a subject took to answer the question. Knowledge matters were also evident in the whole process. Bibliography Bernard, H.R., Wutich, A., and Ryan, G.W, 2016. Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Boston: SAGE publication. Brinkmann, S., 2014. Interview. In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, pp.1008-10. Cohen, M., 2014. Analyzing neural time series data: theory and practice. London: MIT Press. Flick, U., 2015. Introducing research methodology: A beginner's guide to doing a research project. Boston: SAGE. Glesne, C., 2015. Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Pearson. Holmes, J., 2015. Reverie and research interviews: a theoretical and empirical investigation. Essex: Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex. Liamputtong, P., 2013. Qualitative research methods. Panneerselvam, R., 2015. Research Methodology. Athens: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Smith, J., 2015. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Boston: SAGE. Suen, H.K., and Ary, D., 2014. Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. New York: Psychology Press.