I'm a little bit behind with my reading for work as well as this course. Coming to this blog is probably displacement activity (along the lines of it's not worth starting the reading now as I have to go for the train in 15 minutes). However, I think it's worth recording how I feel about stats before I start doing them. The fact that I only loaded my software yesterday (noting that I should have done it before the end of January) suggests some reluctance.
I haven't done any statistics for a long time, but I can see that one of the things I'm reading for work contains some. I don't think I'm phobic about statistics - I just worry about their use and the claims attached to them. But it's actually better to know something about it all if people are likely to misuse statistics, especially if they are making spurious claims based on accurate statistics (but false premises).
I did use numbers even in my very qualitative autoethnographic study - I created a concordance file in Word which helped me count my references to particular themes and thus see what a student "noticed" more frequently than other things. It was a starting point when I had a lot of data and didn't know what to do next - it helped me to create categories and also a useful index. It was of more interest to my examiners than I thought it would be - part of the argument about how you claim your data are data.
So I'll keep that in mind when I'm number crunching! I've more to say on this but my time's up.
Keywords: statistics
Comments
What you were saying here reminded me of the distinction that Turkle makes between computer phobia and "computational reticence".
Turkle, S. (1988). Computational reticence: why women fear the intimate machine. Technology and women's voices : keeping in touch. C. Kramarae. New York ; London, Routledge & Kegan Paul: 41-61.
Basically - and probably misrepresenting wildly - the point seemed to be that it was not a fear of the technology per se, but a problem about one's relationship with what the technology might be seen to be and do.