<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Qualitative Research on Bitfern</title>
    <link>/tags/qualitative-research/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Qualitative Research on Bitfern</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-nz</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:42:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="/tags/qualitative-research/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>What and Why skills vs How skills</title>
      <link>/blog/what-and-why-vs-how-skills/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>/blog/what-and-why-vs-how-skills/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;John Cutler asked a &lt;a href=&#34;https://twitter.com/johncutlefish/status/1535412311057240064&#34;&gt;great question on Twitter&lt;/a&gt;; how do we describe less visible skills like qualitative research in comparison to technical skills like software development?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Initially I was intrigued by the parallels with &lt;a href=&#34;https://www.kent.edu/appling/matranslationonline/blog/translationvsinterpretation&#34;&gt;translation vs interpretation&lt;/a&gt; in linguistics. I can see similarities between a software developer translating requirements into code. And a design researcher interpreting customer interviews to help produce the right software requirements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I also liked a response by Tiffany Chang suggesting that one skill is more concrete and the other more abstract. That resonated with human centered design approaches for me. And the idea of not jumping straight from problem to solution:&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Depth vs breadth</title>
      <link>/blog/depth-vs-breadth/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2022 11:22:01 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>/blog/depth-vs-breadth/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In a recent sprint review we were asked how our findings, which were based on a relatively small number of customer conversations, could be meaningful. Were they statistically significant?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I’d got used to our stakeholders being familiar with the background to qualitative research and how we don’t try to quantify it as such. And that the selection approach / recruitment matrix mean that we can have confidence in the insights. However staff had come and gone and so it was a good reminder to address the common concern that a survey would have been better and more statistically significant.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
