IndexThe Meaning of Data CollectionSystematic ObservationParticipant ObservationConclusionMuch of the functioning of the world today is controlled and fueled by information, giving credence to that famous quote, “information is power.” Professionals, researchers, organizations, businesses, industries and even governments cannot function without information serving as “fuel” for decision making, strategy, knowledge acquisition and storage. But information is not something that is handed to someone on a silver platter. It starts with a small raw fact or figure – or a set of raw facts and figures – that are unorganized and, too often, without meaning or context. This is called “data”. By itself, and in its raw form, data may seem useless. The data will cease to be useless once subjected to processing, where it will be organised, structured and contextualised through interpretation and analysis. Processing gives it meaning, effectively turning it into information that will ultimately be of great use to those who need it. Collectively, all the information will constitute a body of knowledge which, in turn, will benefit the various users of this knowledge. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Meaning of Data Collection Data collection is described as the “process of collecting and measuring information about variables of interest, in an established systematic manner that allows one to answer questions, stated research questions, test hypotheses, and evaluate the results. Depending on the discipline or field, the nature of the information sought, and the objective or purpose of the users, the methods of data collection will also vary, customized according to the purpose and prevailing circumstances, without compromising the integrity, accuracy and reliability of the data. There are two main types of data that users find themselves working with and having to collect. Quantitative data , values ​​or numbers, making them measurable. Therefore, they are usually expressed in numerical form, such as length, size, amount, price and even duration. Using statistics to generate and subsequently analyze this type of data adds credence or credibility to it, so that quantitative data is overall seen as more reliable and objective. Qualitative data. This data, on the other hand, has to do with quality, so it is descriptive rather than numerical in nature. Unlike quantitative data, it is generally not measurable and is acquired primarily through observation. Narratives often make use of adjectives and other descriptive words to refer to data about appearance, color, texture, and other qualities. In most cases, these two types of data are used as preferences in choosing which method or tool to use in data collection. As a matter of fact, data collection methods are classified into two and are based on these types of data. Therefore, we can safely say that there are two main classifications or categories of data collection methods: quantitative data collection methods and data collection methods qualitative data collection methods. Already from the definition of "data collection" alone it is clear why data collection is important: to provide answers, which come in the form of useful information, converted from data. But for many this still doesn't mean much. Depending on the user's point of view and the purpose of the information, it can be obtainedmany concrete benefits from data collection. In general terms, here are some of the reasons why data collection is very important. The first question we will address is: “why should you collect data?” Qualitative data collection methods Exploratory in nature, these methods primarily aim to gain insights and understanding into the underlying reasons and motivations, so they tend to dig deeper. Since they cannot be quantified, measurability becomes an issue. This lack of measurability leads to a preference for methods or tools that are largely unstructured or, in some cases, perhaps structured but only to a very small and limited extent. In general, qualitative methods are time-consuming and expensive to conduct, so researchers try to reduce the costs incurred by decreasing the sample size or number of interviewees. Systematic Observation Observation involves the systematic noting and recording of events, behaviors, and artifacts (objects). in the social context chosen for the study. Observation recording is often referred to as field notes: concrete, detailed, nonjudgmental descriptions of what was observed. For studies that are based exclusively on observation, the researcher makes no special effort to have a particular role in the context; being tolerated as a discreet observer is enough. Classroom studies are an example of observation, often found in education, in which the researcher documents and describes complex actions and interactions: what they mean can only be inferred without other sources of information. This method assumes that behavior has a purpose and expresses deeper values ​​and beliefs. Observation can range from a detailed, highly structured notation of behavior structured by checklists to a more holistic description of events and behaviors. In the early stages of qualitative inquiry, the researcher typically enters the context with broad areas of interest but without predetermined categories or rigid observational checklists. In this way, the researcher is able to discover recurring patterns of behavior and relationships. After these patterns have been identified and described through initial analysis of field notes, checklists become more appropriate and contextually sensitive. Focused observation is then used in later stages of the study, usually to see, for example, whether the analytic themes explain behavior and relationships over the long term or across a variety of contexts. Observation is a fundamental and very important method in all qualitative investigations. It is used to discover complex interactions in natural social contexts. Even in studies using in-depth interviews, observation plays an important role as the researcher notices the body language and influence of the interviewer in addition to his words. However, it is a method that requires a lot of commitment on the part of the researcher. Discomfort, uncomfortable ethical dilemmas and even danger, the difficulty of managing a relatively discrete role, and the challenge of identifying the big picture by carefully observing huge amounts of complex, fast-moving behavior are just some of the challenges. simply observing from afar or finding a participant-observer role in the context, some contexts can present dangers. Street ethnography is a term that describes research contexts that can be dangerous, both physically and emotionally, such as police work with drug addicts, cults and situations where political or social tensions can lead to violence (Weppner, 1977) . more than just “hanging out.” The planning and self-aware observersthey use observation in a systematic way (DeWalt & DeWalt,2001). In the proposal phase, the researcher should describe the purpose of the observation, the phase of the study where it is likely to be most fruitful, and the use of field notes to answer the research questions. Field notes are not scribbles. The proposal author should have explicit strategies for organizing and managing notes. Provides an example of edited and “cleaned up” field notes for a study of preschool teachers. O'Hearn-Curran (1997) formatted descriptive notes in one column on the left, reserving a second column on the right for his comments. These include his emerging analytical insights into behavior. Observers' comments are often a rather fruitful source of analytical insights and clues that focus data collection more narrowly (more on this in Chapter 5). They can also provide important questions for follow-up interviews. In this method, the researcher takes a participatory stance, immersing himself in the environment in which his interviewees find themselves, and in general footage can be used, such as video and audio recordings, photographs and the use of tangible objects such as artefacts, mementos and objects. other tools. (+) The participatory nature can lead the researcher to obtain more reliable information. (+) The data is more reliable and representative of what is actually happening, since it took place and was observed under normal circumstances. (-) Participation may end up influencing the opinions and attitudes of the researcher, who will then end up having difficulty being objective and impartial as soon as the data he is looking for arrives. (-) Validity may arise due to the risk that the researcher's participation may impact the naturalness of the environment. The observed can become reactive to the idea of ​​being watched and observed. If he planned to observe recovering alcoholic mothers in their natural environment (e.g. at home with their children), their presence might cause the subjects to react differently, knowing they were being observed. This could lead to compromised results. Participant Observation Developed primarily from cultural anthropology and qualitative sociology, participant observation (as this method is typically called) is both a general approach to inquiry and a method of data collection. To some extent, it is an essential element of all qualitative studies. As the name suggests, participant observation requires direct involvement in the social world chosen for study. Immersion in the environment allows the researcher to hear, see, and begin to experience reality as the participants do. Ideally, the researcher spends a significant amount of time in the context, learning about daily life there. This immersion offers the researcher the opportunity to learn directly from their own experience. Personal reflections are an integral part of the emerging analysis of a cultural group, because they provide the researcher with new perspectives and opportunities for strange, familiar and familiar, strange (Glens, 1999). Characteristics of Systematic Observations Observation is a systematic method: observation is not random or unplanned. The duration of the observation periods, the interval between them, the number of observations, the observation area or situation, and the various techniques used for observation are carefully planned. Often there are systematic methods of controlling the situation if special factors are to be studied, for example, the study of honest behavior, sportsmanship, leadership qualities, etc. The observation is specific: it is not just a matter of looking for aspectsgeneral principles of human behavior. Rather, it addresses those specific aspects of the overall situation that are assumed to be significant from the point of view of the purpose of the study. The layman may often overlook what is crucial while observing an event or phenomenon, but the scientific observer should look for some precise things that suit his purpose of study so as to save time, money and effort for observation. Observation is objective: observation should be as objective and free from bias as possible. Typically it should be driven by a hypothesis. The observer must maintain ethical neutrality. He must treat the hypothesis as something to be tested. But at the same time he must maintain a flexible attitude, so that he can deviate from his original plan when such a deviation appears unavoidable. Observation is quantitative: although many important phenomena cannot be quantified, it becomes almost imperative to use some means to quantify observations in order to increase their precision and facilitate their analysis. Quality should also be converted into quantity, because qualitative data is subjective and quantitative is objective and can be further interpreted objectively. Observation is a business of the eyes: PV Young observes that observation is a systematic and deliberate study through the eye. An observer collects the data he saw in his own eyes. Gathering information through the eyes is probably the most reliable data collection technique in social research. Defined Purpose: The observation must have defined goals and objectives. It should be clearly defined before the actual observation process begins. Without the correct goals and objectives observation will be unsystematic and costly. Recording of the observation is carried out immediately: during the observation period it is very difficult for the observer to remember every single element of the observation. You may forget a lot of important information. If we rely on memory, the factor of forgetting will come in and influence the observation data. Therefore the observer should record all important information as soon as the observation is completed. Observation is verifiable: the result of the observation can be checked and verified. The observation must be verified with the usual criteria of reliability, validity and usability. It may be possible to verify the observation results by comparing the results of different observers by repeating the study. Focus groups are one method of data collection. Data is collected through a semi-structured group interview process. Focus groups are moderated by a group leader. Focus groups are generally used to collect data on a specific topic. Focus group methods emerged in the 1940s with the work of Merton and Fiske who used focus groups to conduct audience studies. Characteristics of Focus Groups The design of focus group research will vary based on the research question being studied. Below, we highlight some general principles to consider: Standardization of questions – Focus groups can vary in the extent to which they follow a structured protocol or allow discussion to emerge Number of focus groups conducted – or sampling will depend on “segmentation” or different stratifications (e.g. age, gender, socioeconomic status, health status) that the researcher identifies as important to the research topic Number of participants per group – the rule of thumb has been 6-10 homogeneous strangers, but as Morgan (1996) points out ) there may be reasons to have smaller or slightly larger groups Level of moderator involvement - can range from high to lowof control exercised during focus groups (e.g., extent to which structured questions are asked and group dynamics are actively managed) Focus groups can be used: To explore new areas of research To explore a difficult-to-observe topic (of which not easy to access) To explore a topic that does not lend itself to observation techniques (e.g. attitudes and decision-making) To explore sensitive topics When you want to collect a concentrated set of observations in a short period of time to gain certain perspectives and experiences of people on a topic, particularly when it involves people who might otherwise be marginalized. In combination with other methods, focus groups could be used to: collect preliminary data assist in the development of surveys and interview guides clarify research findings with another method Recording focus group data One of the challenges in recording focus data group is to know who is speaking at a given moment, since often multiple people are speaking in overlap. Consider focus group sessions with audio or video recording (or even both). The video will be useful to identify who is speaking. Recordings also provide access to nuances of discussion and the ability to replay sessions during analysis. Transcribe the focus group discussions Have at least 2-3 researchers (in addition to the moderator) participate in the focus group and take notes. The focus of each researcher's note-taking efforts may be different (e.g., nonverbal behavior, group dynamics, emergent themes). Taking notes is important to capture non-verbal data. Even if you are videotaping a group, you will miss some nonverbal behaviors that may be recorded by the note taker. Advantages Ability to produce a large amount of data on a topic in a short time Access to topics that may otherwise be unobservable Can ensure that data is directly targeted to the researcher's topic Conclusion A general review of studies based on a systematic observation program reveals many aspects that are inherently questionable. There has been considerable debate within the systematic observation tradition regarding the validity and reliability of the findings produced (Hamersley, 1993). A general criticism is related to the predetermined nature of the systematic observation categories. Researchers adapting this view (Walker & Adelman as cited in McIntyre & Macleod, 1986) argue that a framework irrelevant to the observed environment can be imposed when using systematic observation programs since many systems are not suited to all types of school contexts. . Similarly, Delmont and Hamilton (1986) propose that systematic observation techniques fail to understand the perspectives in which classroom interaction occurs and in particular the intentions of the teachers and pupils involved. In addition to these concerns, systematic observation has proven weak in providing any evidence about participants' mental activities due to the fact that direct behavior is observed. Therefore, the observer is not allowed to discover why people do certain things. A counterargument is presented by McIntyre and Macleod (1986) who argue that the observer is able to understand the shared meanings within a class because he is a member of the same culture, and therefore the categorization of events that occur can be based on these shared cultural values. Besides that, the main strength of systematic observation is based on the objective description of the behavior of.