Qualitative vs. Quantitative Data

The Basics

Last Tuesday, Dr. Brandon Nutting, a professor with the University of South Dakota's Media and Journalism Department spoke to Dr. Janet Davison's Intro to Multiplatform  Storytelling class, also known as MCOM 325.

Nutting spoke about the psychological / physiological lab in the basement of the Al Neuharth Media Center, also known as the COMPARE Lab. This stands for communication, media psychology and related effects. 

Nutting is one of two professors involved with the lab. A handful of graduate and undergraduate students assist in the process of collecting physiological and psychological responses to different forms of media. The room where all of this happens is located in a basement, however, Nutting says the space is "perfect" for their current needs. 

First, the administrators of the tests hook the subject up to sensors, which can monitor heart rate, skin conductors, and other involuntary responses.

“When it comes to physiological responses, your body cannot lie,” Nutting said.

The subject is then placed in a large, brown chair, and is exposed to various forms of media, and the results are compiled, and eventually published in academic journals. 

The Difference

Even though Nutting's passion lies with research, there's one particular kind he isn't particularly fond of: qualitative. Qualitative research tends to involve data collection that's more anecdotal, without a hard set of numbers and facts. This type of research also involves typically smaller sample sizes. With qualitative research, subjects are able to alter their decisions based on what other people think, and other outside sources, which has the potential to skew results. 

On the other hand, quantitative research puts numbers to everything, meaning a concrete calculation is never far from reach. This type of research tends to deal with larger sample sizes. With this type of data collection, everything is measurable, and there is no denying the numbers that manifest from the research. These numbers are counting things like heart rate and visual perception. 

“I like to count things. I don’t see the value in five people telling me they were traumatized,” Nutting said. 

For example, if Nutting conducted research by asking 20 people if they were scared of a horror movie, this would be qualitative research. Conversely, if Nutting were to individually test 100 people by making them watch a horror movie while hooked up to the COMPARE Lab's sensors, he could physically see the subjects' change in heart rate and other factors to determine if they were affected at all. This would be an example of quantitative research. 

Although his interests reside with strictly quantitative data collection, Nutting does believe that qualitative data has its place. For instance, Nutting says creating focus groups and using that information to conduct quantitative research is beneficial. 

The 2014 Al Neuharth Award for Excellence in the Media

On Thursday, October 9th, Peter Prichard received the 2014 Al Neuharth Award for Excellence in the Media. The ceremony was held in the Al Neuharth Media Center on the campus of the University of South Dakota. Faculty, students, alumni, and members of the community attended the event, which included a social hour before the award was presented.

Students from the university's media and journalism department recorded and directed the event, which will be broadcast on South Dakota Public Television later this fall. Chief Operating Officer of the Newseum Institute, Gene Policinski delivered the welcome. He mentioned that Neuharth would've enjoyed that students from the university were a vital part of the award ceremony.

USD President James Abbott made the opening remarks, and he stressed the importance of tradition.

"The older I get, the more I believe that tradition means something," President Abbott said. 

Abbott continued his address by saying we need to be reminded of those who make things happen, and how glad he is that the Neuharth award is a continued tradition on USD's campus. Neuharth was an alumni of the university, and former editor of The Volante. In the closing of his remarks, Abbott said, "Neuharth's spirit will always be here at USD."

Following a video showcasing Prichard's life and successes, Jane Neuharth, son of Al and Chair of the Freedom Forum Board of Trustees, introduced and presented the award.

This was the first year the award has been presented without its namesake, Al Neuharth, in attendance. Although the ceremony was held to honor Prichard, he remained very humble in his acceptance of the award.

During his journalism career, Prichard was a copy editor, a police reporter, an investigative/projects reporter, a media critic, a political editor, and a TV producer. Prichard was also a founding editor of USA Today from 1988-1995. During this time, the newspaper became the most circulated newspaper, printing 2.3 million copies each year.

Prichard began his remarks by remembering his time with Al Neuharth.

"Al was one of the most magnetic human beings I have ever met," Prichard said. 

He said every experience he had with Neuharth was an adventure, and he used to always ask, "What did you do for me yesterday?" Prichard also recalled the extravagant nature of Neuharth. He said that whenever Neuharth would stay at a hotel, he requested fresh fruit with no grapes, an expensive bottle of champagne, and a full stack of the day's newspapers outside his door before 6am.

After this, Prichard started talking about his thoughts on today's world of media and journalism. He said his feelings toward the industry can be summed up with one phrase:

It's the best of times, and the worst of times.

He cited the wide availability of news as being a positive aspect of the digital age, but the loss of journalistic value as a negative trait. Prichard gave several statistics citing the decline of journalism, including 31% of news consumers have stopped reading a favorite newspaper or watching a favorite newscast, and 29% of Americans can’t name a single freedom guaranteed to American’s by the first amendment. He also presented examples of celebrity or "fluff" news taking precedent over journalism. Prichard said when he went to sites like Buzzfeed or Mashable, there were several articles with a "must-read" tag that didn't include anything about news that matters. 

Another troubling issue Prichard presented was misinformation and manipulation in the media, citing journalists that don't present fair and accurate news reports. He said 60% of respondents to a recent Newseum survey think the news media are biased.      

On the other hand, Prichard said it's the responsibility of everyone in the country to be smarter consumers of media, and to be more critical of what they read, especially on the Internet.

Prichard ended his address on a positive note by saying the media protects the country against production, and that every day as a journalist is fresh and new. 

“Every day is a new day, every day is a new story, and you meet all types of interesting people,” Prichard said.