For those of you with experience giving and attending qualitative presentations, I need some help. I have a qualitative project that I will be presenting at ASA.
Should my presentation have minimal slides and I just speak to the data that I found, or should I put a quote up per theme/subtheme? I have about 20 minutes to speak and I can go either way, but I'm not sure what the norm is for presentation of qualitative projects (and I'm not getting a whole lot of help in my department)...
You definitely still want to have slides to guide the listener the whole way through. One thing qual presenters face is whether or not to put the whole quotes on the slides or to not put the quotes on the slides and just read them to the audience. Honestly, the most effective presentations I've seen do something in between... only putting the most important or significant part of the quote on the slide.
For example, lets say I read your post in it's entirety in my presentation, but the slide might just say:
Sub-Theme: Lack of support from department
"...but I'm not sure what the norm is for presentation of qualitative projects (and I'm not getting a whole lot of help in my department)"
I like qual presentations and papers that skeleton the material with their taxonomy and mechanism rather than a narrative. Quotations should be treated clinically, as examples of a mechnism or process, not as emotive devices designed to garner sympathy for research subjects or merely call descriptive attention to their "problematic" circumstances. Quants shouldn't put entire regression tables on slides and quals shouldn't put paragraphs of quoatations on slides. No unreadable flow charts either. You're using a couple few visual aids to illustrate an analytical framework - and the emphasis there is on framework, so stick to the 2x4s and joists and skip the mauve paint and furnishings.
So 1dd0, my PPT is set up exactly as this - an analytical framework that uses quotes as "clinical" evidence. But my problem is whether or not I should put quotes up or read them or just generally discuss my findings (though this would make me feel uncomfortable, like I am asking the audience to "just trust me" on it).
So 1dd0, my PPT is set up exactly as this - an analytical framework that uses quotes as "clinical" evidence. But my problem is whether or not I should put quotes up or read them or just generally discuss my findings (though this would make me feel uncomfortable, like I am asking the audience to "just trust me" on it).
I liked 82b3's advice there. I'd read the whole quote to perform empirical rigor and engender trust, while using the slide as an anchor that just reminds the audience what the takeaway from the quote is. Could be a punchline, summary, clipart, field site picture, whatever. Maybe think of it as a newspaper headline or photo caption more than a data/methods appendix?
You might photocopy key information that you want others to look at, such as major points, a graph, table, and key quotes.do i need slides for roundtable?
I suppose you could face a laptop to the table at a conference roundtable, but do that only if it is short and key information, such as a 30 sec video that's easily visible. However, according to ASA rules, "No audio-visual or tape recording equipment is supplied or permitted at Open Refereed Roundtable Sessions and Informal Discussion Roundtables." Is that strictly enforced, even if there is no or low-volume audio and you run the device using the battery? http://www.asanet.org/AM2014/roundtables.cfm
One of the goals of these presentations is to receive feedback on your research. Make it easier for discussants and others to do that. Roundtable rooms can sometimes get loud, so a handout can help others at your table follow along and think about what to ask or suggest.
I in fact know some qualie presenters just read their papers. It's not always bad. you can read quite vividly, depending your charisma it may be very successful indeed. Just like some teachers like to make big time drama, but others can still deliver strong message without involving much animated postures.
I like qual presentations and papers that skeleton the material with their taxonomy and mechanism rather than a narrative. Quotations should be treated clinically, as examples of a mechnism or process, not as emotive devices designed to garner sympathy for research subjects or merely call descriptive attention to their "problematic" circumstances.
This is reasonable, but be aware that this signals a particular type of qualitative data analysis. For some analytic strategies, e.g. ideal type and narrative analysis, context from which any particular passage is drawn will be hugely important. So treating quotations "clinically" will work for some strategies, but certainly not for all.
This is reasonable, but be aware that this signals a particular type of qualitative data analysis. For some analytic strategies, e.g. ideal type and narrative analysis, context from which any particular passage is drawn will be hugely important. So treating quotations "clinically" will work for some strategies, but certainly not for all.
I meant to convey that the context would come from the talk itself (where you can read more quotations than a slide) and from the analytical framework. I don't know what ideal type and narrative analysis are. Can you explain?
This is reasonable, but be aware that this signals a particular type of qualitative data analysis. For some analytic strategies, e.g. ideal type and narrative analysis, context from which any particular passage is drawn will be hugely important. So treating quotations "clinically" will work for some strategies, but certainly not for all.
I meant to convey that the context would come from the talk itself (where you can read more quotations than a slide) and from the analytical framework. I don't know what ideal type and narrative analysis are. Can you explain?
Sorry, don't read too much into what I wrote. For a talk, I agree with others that a snippet of text on a slide and reading longer quotes makes sense. My point, I think, was more a reaction the language used by 1dd0 and was probably more appropriate for another thread.
If you're curious, here's what I meant (although this won't have bearing on your presentation): Sometimes the way a person tells their story is a finding in and of itself, so it's necessary to present longer narratives. Or instead of using snippets from a bunch of different Rs to illustrate a point, sometimes scholar will use one as the "ideal typical" representation of their category. That approach to data presentation is more, "here's my point and here's a person that illustrates it really well." With that approach, it often helps to include a % of how many other respondents fall into that category. One nice example of this (in text, not a talk) is Jennifer Silva's 2012 ASR. Hopefully that's clearer!