We first investigate and describe local norms in the CSCW and HCI literature, then we combine examples from these findings with guidelines from methods literature to help researchers answer questions like: "should I calculate IRR?" Drawing on a meta-analysis of a representative sample of CSCW and HCI papers from 2016-2018, we find that authors use a variety of approaches to communicate reliability notably, IRR is rare, occurring in around 1/9 of qualitative papers. In this article, we use two approaches to understand reliability in qualitative research. For researchers in highly interdisciplinary fields like computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) and human-computer interaction (HCI), the question is particularly complex as collaborators bring diverse epistemologies and training to their research. What does reliability mean for building a grounded theory? What about when writing an auto-ethnography? When is it appropriate to use measures like inter-rater reliability (IRR)? Reliability is a familiar concept in traditional scientific practice, but how, and even whether to establish reliability in qualitative research is an oft-debated question.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |