2-2-2017
Intl 500 Research Methods and Results Report: Week 5
Qualitative
Forum/Focused Homework Due: 2-2-2017
American Public University System (APUS)
School of Intelligence and Global Security Studies
2nd Master’s Degree: Miss. Bayo Elizabeth
Cary, AA, BA, MLIS
Email: mumbaibayo.cary@yandex.com
Homework Forum Instructions:
This week we focused on developing an understanding
for some different qualitative
methods. What are two or
three assumptions that are made specific to qualitative research?
Be specific in your description of each one.
What are some additional questions that you have about the different
qualitative methods that are out there? Use this as an opportunity
to gain some clarity on the research methods you plan to use in order to carry [our
your (sic.)] (My case study only!) case study.
Instructions: Your initial post should be at least 300 words. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions.
Initial Post Due: Thursday, by 11:55pm ET
Responses Due: Sunday, by 11:55pm ET
Intl
500 Body of Research Forum Post: Week 5
“Overview:
Application of Qualitative Data, To Experimental Research: Collections,
Methods, and Analysis”
By:
Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS
Qualitative data methods and analysis,
differs, to-a-great-extent, from quantitative. Qualitative methods utilize a narrative
structure, whereas, quantitative methods, in experimental data collection, and
analysis-is focused, on the numbers. In the evaluation, of qualitative data, it
is often argued, that, quantitative data, is of a greater importance-when any
particular issue, is being evaluated, and, “significant findings,” are
required.
“Qualitative
Research Methods for the Social Sciences”
By:
Berg, Bruce L., and Lune, Howard
(2014)
Qualitative data collection, and
analysis, do in fact-sometimes, lead, to: helpful, and impressive collections,
of interpreted data-which, can be utilized, in future applications:
1) What
is the nature of organizational capacity to do and use evaluation?
And;
2) What
are the factors and conditions that influence the integration of evaluation
into the organizational culture? (Cousins, et al. 2014, 26)
“United
States Intelligence Community: ‘A Policy of Deception’”
Qualitative
Intelligence Data, and, Related Assumptions:
1) The
intelligence collected, for evaluation-is honest;
2) Intelligence
information, is collected, to be beneficial;
3) Reaping
benefits, from intelligence information, can be increased, by, a larger
quantity of information.
There are no benefits, to
any intelligence information collected-if, the information, is not true.
Below, I am presenting, two
examples, of data, that was collected, in the correct and required ways, that,
was also evaluated correctly, and-that, had no bearing at all-of any meaning,
after, the report was presented, because-all the information, was based
on-lies! The information below, is information, that was, “business
intelligence,” and, it was: collected, saved, analyzed, reproduced, published,
and disseminated-all based, on: “a US policy of deception”-a microcosm, of the
macrocosm-our US Government, in Washington, DC.
Case
Study 1: Canadian Nonprofits:
“Multiple Case Study
Methods and Findings”
By:
Cousins, J. Bradley, and Bourgeois, Isabelle and Associates (2014)
The evaluation, of nonprofit
organizations, by: Cousins and Bourgeois, et al. (2014)-as presented in: “Multiple
Case Study Methods and Findings,” demonstrates proof, that the particular
Canadian nonprofit organizations, evaluated-did in fact, achieve, a positive
impact, through their efforts. However, a review of the qualitative, self-report
records, of a nonprofit, is not, a reliable enough, evaluation, of that organizations:
financial records, or, community activities.
When you discuss, what a
nonprofit, has chosen to give back, to any given community- a “solid”
evaluation, begins, with-an un-biased, investigation, of the financial records.
It is of primary importance, to first see, if the books, have been “cooked (Cousins,
et al. 2014, 29-31).” Therefore, although the data, evaluated, during the:
Cousins, et al. research studies (2014)-was positive-“ Multiple
Case Study Methods and Findings,” there is no way, to make a conclusive
evaluation, due to the fact, that the information provided, may-really have
been-lies.
Case
Study 2: Re-Financing Nonprofit Organizations
“A
qualitative analysis of social intelligence in nonprofit organizations:
external knowledge acquisition for human capital development, organizational
learning and innovation”
By:
Kong, Eric (2015)
Towards the end, of the 1980’s, there
was a move, in the support of nonprofit organizations, to move nonprofit
organization management from: self- funding/fundraising activities, to, a contract
and government sponsorship position-instead (Kong 2015, 465). Internationally,
governments in the West, began to look for nonprofit organizations, to fill in the
service gaps, that-were not adequately covered, by formally established,
government entities (Kong 2015, 465). In every case-it was never possible, for
any nonprofit organization, to replace, a full-time paid and employed,
government entity, although, some organization, like: The Red Cross-did try
(more volunteers), and, failed-miserably!
Traditionally, nonprofit organizations,
are not, in-a-position to operate: under great duress, or, with huge numbers of
needy-like, a full and autonomous government, is purportedly prepared for.
Nonprofit organizations, became over-burdened, by the high demands-that
International governments, placed on them-a high return, on little, to no
financial, investment. Services, that were provided, by nonprofits, began to
back-slide, and, qualitative, and quantitative evaluation data reports, were “cooked,”
to present the picture, that, a government like America-pretended, was
possible, on-almost no money at all.
Several approaches, which can be
utilized, for qualitative data/ “content analysis,” are, as follows (Berg and Lune
2012, 350):
1) Interpretive
(Berg and Lune 2012, 350);
2) Social
Anthropological (Berg and Lune 2012, 351);
3) Collaborative
(Berg and Lune 2012, 351).
The “interpretive
approach,” to qualitative data analysis, is, open to various applications,
based on what the predominant theory, behind the over-all analysis, is based
on. The theory, that I have chosen to apply to my: experimental research, and
data collection, for the study and practice of intelligence, is: “matrix/hybrid
theory.” The “matrix/hybrid theory of intelligence,” is the new “Game Theory,”
and, as such-allows a great deal of flexibility, in applications.
From, this perspective, my overall
objective, is to work towards: a logical, fluid, and easy explanation-based on
my collection of “evidence,” to support, my: scientific/legal argument-in
favor, of my research hypothesis. I am utilizing, my academic research
writings, and my investigative collection of intelligence information, to
resolve, several pressing legal issues, for the Intelligence community, in
America. I expect to effect change, not just, to turn in a research paper-for a
passing grade.
The
Future of Qualitative Experimental Research and Secondary Data Analysis:
While, there are a number, of computer
software programs, that can be applied, to quantitative-such as: SPSS-there,
are relatively no software, that has been developed, for an application, to
qualitative data analysis-“content analysis,” as compared, to what software is
available, for the analysis of quantitative data (Berg and Lune 2012, 350).
“The
Shared Fate of Two Innovations in Qualitative Methodology: The Relationship of
Qualitative Software and Secondary Analysis of Archived Qualitative Data”
By:
Nigel Fielding (2000)
The application, of secondary analysis,
to qualitative data-is relatively new software genre. In the 1980’s, several
small companies, offered a minimal amount, of software, for in office use-to be
applied, as a secondary evaluator, to qualitative experimental research data (Fielding
2000, 2). The reception, of software, into the experimental research industry,
and for the application, to qualitative data-was constrained, by: technology
available, and, by the newness, of the field. However, social scientists, specializing,
in the collection, and the evaluation, of qualitative data, for the purposes,
of experimental research-knew, that for “pragmatic” reasons, a secondary
evaluation of data-had to be standardized (Fielding 2000, 2)
It is my preference-when faced with
issues of intelligence, and the intersection of war-that, America, as a discursive
country, first rely on: US, and then the International Court System-prior to a
consideration, of nuclear warfare. It is troubling, that-at this very point, in
US history-Mr. Trump, has both: skipped over, the application of, both: the US
Courts, and The International Court System, and, has already moved on, to
commissioning a second Oppenheimer Atom bomb and war. I do not support nuclear
war, or WWIII, and-I am not the only American-who sincerely thinks this way.
References
In
Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 8th Ed. 349-382.
Accessed February 1, 2017.
Cousins, J. B., Bourgeois, I., &
Associates. 2014. “Multiple case study
methods and
findings.” New Directions for Evaluation,
vol. 141.: 25–99. Accessed February 1, 2017. http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multiple+Case+Study+Methods+and+Findings&rft.jtitle=New+Directions+for+Evaluation&rft.au=Cousins%2C+J.+Bradley&rft.au=Bourgeois%2C+Isabelle&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.issn=1097-6736&rft.eissn=1534-875X&rft.volume=2014&rft.issue=141&rft.spage=25&rft.epage=99&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fev.20077&rft.externalDocID=EV20077¶mdict=en-US
Fielding,
Nigel (2000). “The shared fate of two innovations in
qualitative methodology: The relationship of qualitative software and
secondary analysis of archived qualitative data.” Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, vol. 1.
3.: Accessed February 1, 2017. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/867756425?accountid=8289
Kong, E.
(2015). A qualitative analysis of social intelligence in
nonprofit organizations: External knowledge acquisition for human capital
development, organizational learning and innovation. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, vol. 13.
4.: 463-474. Accessed February 1, 2017. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1057/kmrp.2013.63
No comments:
Post a Comment