From Desk to Field: From Desk to Field:

Semiotic Research via Qualitative Semiotic Research via Qualitative

and Quantitative Methodsand Quantitative Methods

Early-Fall School of Semiotics

““Ways of Semiotic ResearchWays of Semiotic Research””

Sept. 10 / 2015, Sozopol

/ Bulgaria

Dr. Dimitar TrendafilovNew Bulgarian University – Sofia

South-East European Center for Semiotic Studies / Dep. of Economics

Agenda

Meaning

Why Qual. & Quant. methods?

Triangulation Argument

Secondary Data Analysis

Ethnography and Netnography

The Semantic Differential

Meaning?

First and foremost, we need to know a little bit more about Meaning and its crucial place in our lives, even in our everyday routine. Actually, it’s the key tool for us to share our experience, impressions, ideas and even feelings, and to provide coordination of our acts and goals. And all this happens despite in almost all of its manifestations meaning is affected by dilution, improvement or extension.

That’s why semiotics distinguishes denotation and connotation, basis and uses of meaning, that could stay amazingly far from one another. Meaning is a living and highly changeable entity, which is related with so many factors that it’s impossible to any individual to keep it as it is. But, however, we keep trying to grasp it for different purposes. In the context of EFSS 2015, our purpose is just to use it as a working term to present some research approaches.

Meaning and Culture – from language to cultural symbols (L. Oswald [2015: 140-141] – Whorf’s Hypothesis about the French distinction between raw and cooked lamb, including distinguishing various parts of the animal, while in the UK it refers predominantly to wool and textile industry).

Why Qual. and Quant. Methods

together?

A lot of factors cause the urban legend that Qual. and

Quant. methods are in some kind of opposition while, in

fact, they are/could be highly complementary.

Just to name a few factors: the artificial division

between them in universities and in research agencies,

the specialization researchers usually have, the

technical training and availability they need, etc.

Qual. and Quant. Methods together /1

Quantitative methods are focused on “How

many/much?”, but they need very clear idea what to

measure and how questionnaire to be designed.

Qualitative methods aim to find answer/s of the

question “Why?”, but it takes time and needs both right

questions to be asked, to the right people, and an

verification by broader sample.

Qual. and Quant. Methods together /2

According to the Phase-model Qual. methods generate hypotheses and Quant. test them (Kelle and Erzberger 2004).

However, it’s possible for Qual. procedures to help in filling gaps in explanation using “sociological variables”where statistical relations are explained by additional assumptions after the event, while Quant. procedures are able to show super-individual structural relationships, which are not consciously observed by the individuals and don’t come out by the interviews.

Qual. and Quant. Methods together /3

The usual accusation to semiotics is the subjectivity, the high level of personal intervention it has. This means that the results depend on the experience, involvement and skills of the researcher beyond the level practitioners can endorse. That’s why semiotics meets limited acceptance among professional research methods, especially when we are talking about the business area.

Business prefers the language of numbers in order to be able to compare and to conglomerate data. What business forgets very often, however, is the fact that the beginning and in the end of the process stays some human being who designs the research instruments and eventually interprets the raw data to convert it in useful information. The device that processes the numbers is important, but it reminds to be an instrument, not different than spade or fork.

Triangulation?

Images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CD006-Triangulation_16th_century.png / http://www.neilson.co.za/mobile-network-geolocation-obtaining-the- cell-ids-the-signal-strength-of-surrounding-towers-from-a-gsm-modem/ / http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying1.html

Triangulation /2

It’s broadly defined as “the combination of methodologies in

the study of the same phenomenon” (N. Denzin, 1978, “The

Research Act”).

It seeks to overcome the limitations and weaknesses of

each method chosen and used in given research project,

thus, it falls in the group of the so called “multiple methods”

which is strategy of convergent methodology or convergent

validation (Jick 1979).

Images: http://archives.rockpaperink.com/content/article.php?id=1039 / http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2009/12/testing-content-concepts.php

Triangulation /3

The principle of comparison of different data (usually

Qual. and Quant.) as well as different methods (e.g.

observation and interviews as usually the

anthropologists do) in order to see whether and how

they collaborate one another.

It refers to combination of different perspectives to

the object or different findings on it.

Triangulation /4

Triangulation helps in demonstrating that the result are

valid and relevant as they are, but not because of the

influence of the methodology.

The wide spread opinion is that it’s a validation strategy

but in reality it could serve for larger scope of purposes.

It requires creativity as well as revision when the

methods don’t fit very well (Jick 1979).

Triangulation /5 – Types /1

Triangulation of data – it combines data drown from

different sources and at different times, in different

places and different people.

Investigator triangulation – the use of different

observers or interviewers, to balance out the subjective

influences of individuals (Flick 2004: 179).

Triangulation /5 – Types /2

Triangulation of theories – “approaching data with

multiple perspectives and hypothesis in mind… Various

theoretical points of view could be placed side by side

to assess their utility and power” (Denzin 1978).

Essentially it involves cross-checking for internal

consistency or reliability (when it’s “within-method”) or

tests the degree of external validity (when it’s

“between-methods”) (Jick 1979: 603).

Triangulation /6 (Uwe Flick 2004)

Within-method – using two techniques of data

collection under one method /for example, semi-

structured interview and narrative approach/ in order to

take advantage of their strengths.

They act like complementary tools for extracting the

meaning we are after and in the same time the

researcher clarifies the different facets of the

subjective approach.

Triangulation /7

Between-method – usually it refers to the linking of Qual.

and Quant. methods, but it could be also a combination

between secondary date analysis and immersed

observation, which allows the researcher to capture the

different aspects of the issue under study.

It is highly applicable in ethnology rather because of the

extension of possibilities to discover about the aspects of

the phenomenon/object than because of reciprocal

validation of individual methods.

Our Example – Coffee Drinking in BG, Project 2012 /1

1st stage – Semi-structured Interviews, 25 respondents

and a consultation with coffee expert / marketer.

Our Example – Coffee Drinking in BG, Project 2012 /2

2nd stage – Online-based Questionnaire, more than 400 respondents, and parallel Internet research for secondary data available.

Triangulation /8

Criticism: extreme eclecticism that could put great doubt

about the argument the multiple methods involved could

gain “total” picture of given phenomenon.

Answering the critics, the triangulation apologist Norman

Denzin tries to present it more as strategy leading to a

deeper understanding and a step to a road to greater

knowledge than as validity improving tool (in Flick 2004:

179).

Triangulation /9 (Uwe Flick, 2004: 183)

As a conclusion, three modes of application of

triangulation are available:

Verification strategy (as we used it to certain extend for

the “coffee-culture” project).

As an approach for all discoveries generalization.

As a route to additional knowledge.

Secondary data analysis?

Applied semiotics is popular predominantly with the use of

set of secondary data because it researches culture and

meaning production in it, thus, it needs artifacts – bearers

of meaning.

Or, as someone put it once, “People don’t know what they

know” and, at best, they could only make suggestion and

interpretation of what they know and understand, but in

the most of the cases they are “artifacts” too. They are

products of their culture, saying “Everybody knows it”.

Secondary data analysis /2

The disadvantage of the secondary data is that it’s not

collected/prepared for the research we conduct, but in

semiotics usually we use larger sample of sources and

sources which are not quite particular and very closed as

information, therefore researchers have bigger basis to

work on and to extract findings and hypothesis to work on

further on (e.g. magazine articles, advertisements, books,

etc.).

Ethnography /1

It originates in anthropologic research since the beginning of

the existence of this science, but together with the work of C.

Levi-Strauss, “on-field” semiotics received serious impulse

from C. Geertz and M. Douglas.

Ethnomethodology aims to determine the principles and

mechanisms by means of which social actors, in their action,

produce the meaningful structure and ordering of what is

happening around them and what they express and do in

social integration with others (Bergmann, in Flick et al. 2004:

72 ff).

Ethnography /2

Semiotic ethnography accounts for multiple discourses,

cultural perspectives, and sign systems at the play in the

interpretative process (Winner 1983, in Oswald 2015:

137).

The ethnographic disposition stages the intersection of

context, reference, and the complex inter-subjective

relationship and informants in the active production of

meaning (Oswald 2015: 137).

Ethnography /3

Unlike hypothesis testing, which uses research to prove a

theory, SE employs theory to decode the field site and

also uses field operations to advance theories about

tradition, social operation and perception of value in a

given setting (Oswald 2015: 137).

It invites the ethnographer to reflect the role of cultural

codes in the perceived meaning and value of cultural

signs (Joseph 1983 in Oswald 2015: 137).

Ethnography /4

It includes - Participant observation and Extended

participation (without any interviews and documents

reading, just watching and experiencing everyday life)

It concerns small life-worlds and not the whole society

itself and focus the attention on its culture (language,

values and behavior) and forms of knowledge. Urban

culture, consumer communities and lifestyle subcultures

are among the contemporary ethnos-es under study.

Netnography /1 (Robert Kozinets, in Belk 2006: 129)

The Internet is a sphere where communities of different

sizes and with various purposes share information,

opinions and ideas which is different but prominent

research field.

Usual places – forums, chat rooms, blogs, game-playing

spaces, and social media. They differ in the interests and

devotion of the participants, but the amount of data is like

in no field before.

Netnography /2

Three types of data: 1. The data directly copied from the

platforms, posted by the community members, 2. The

data that the researcher inscribes regarding the

observations on the community, particular members,

interactions and meaning as well as his/her own

participation, and 3. Direct approach to individuals and

interviewing.

Although it seems like close to content analysis,

netnography inevitably deploy number of techniques.

Netnography /3

Being multi-method approach, Netnography would

include projective techniques, historical and content

analyses, semiotic and visual analyses, survey work as

well as interviews, observations, etc.

As it becomes clear, even though it’s mainly oriented to

online communities, it does not mean that Netnography

leaves the offline approach to groups, individuals and

events.

Netnography /4

Observational

Netnography

(Distant position)

Participant-

Observational

Netnography

Auto-

Netnography

(Self-observation)

According to the Ration of Participation:

Low-None to High

Semantic Differential?

Semantic differential is a type of a rating scale

designed to measure the connotative meaning of

objects, events, and concepts. The connotations are

used to derive the attitude towards the given object,

event or concept (Wikipedia 2015; Osgood et al. 1967).

Usually it’s applicable to the difficult to be defined objects

and phenomena, vague or just hard to be explained in

simple words.

Semantic Differential /2

For the first time it was an application of his more

general attempt to measure the semantics or meaning

of words, particularly adjectives, and their referent concepts. The respondent is asked to choose where

his or her position lies, on a scale between two bipolar adjectives (for example: "Good-Evil" or "Valuable-

Worthless"). SD can be used to measure opinions, attitudes and values. (Wikipedia 2015)

Semantic Differential /3

Images: http://www.mm4xl.com/semantic-differential-measurement-scale-chart-software.php / http://www.mm4xl.com/semantic-differential-measurement-scale-chart-software.php

Semantic Differential /3

According to the phenomenon studied it’s challenging to

find the best/relevant oppositions about it since they are

not self-evident (for example, in everyday speech in BG,

cars are never “fast - slow”, but “powerful - tied”).

It’s better not to put antonyms constructed by negation

(like “clear - unclear”, rather “clear - vague”) because it

causes negative attitude instead of evaluation and rating.

LiteratureBelk, Russell (ed.), 2006. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications, Inc. Creswell, J.W., 2012. Educational Research. Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Boston & London: Pearson Education, Inc. Denzin, Norman and Lincoln, Yvonna (eds.), 2005. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd

ed..London & Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.Flick, Uwe, 2004. Triangulation in Qualitative Research. In Flick, U., Von Kardorff, E. and Steinke, I (eds.) “A Companion to Qualitative Research”, pp. 178-183. London & Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Gacitúa-Marió, E. and Wodon, Q. (eds.). 2001. Measurement and Meaning. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Jick, T.D., 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Qualitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. In Administrative Science Quarterly. 24, pp. 602-611.Kelle, Udo and Erzberger, Christian, 2004. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Not in Opposition. In Flick, U., Von Kardorff, E. and Steinke, I (eds.) “A Companion to Qualitative Research”, pp. 172-177. London & Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George J. and Tannenbaum, Percy H. 1967. The Measurement of Meaning. Chicago and London: University of Illinois Press.Oswald, Laura R. 2015. Creating Value. The Theory and Practice of Marketing Semiotics Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Peterson, Jordan B., 1999. Maps of Meaning. The Architecture of Belief. London/New York: Routledge.Portner, Paul H. 2005. What is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics. Malden, Ma and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.