How do you get the project map to show the direction? It only seems to visualize it as a one way arrow, even when you choose associated (no arrows) or informs (arrows on both ends). Can it only be done in a concept map (i.e. manually as a model)?
You cannot choose different arrow shapes in a project map, but have a choice of three types of arrows in a concept map. I hope this response is helpful, but do let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
These relationships are far too arbitrary. I know this is suppose to be "just a demo", but the last relationship you demonstrated had zero empirical data behind the relationship to support it. You can basically invent any relationship you want and pull the wool over the eyes of your audience. You should be using a framework like UML relationships, which are based on the lowest level IDEAS ontological framework. Users should be collecting "evidence-based" relationship data during interviews or existing documentation. I don't want to be a butt head, but you're demonstrating bad habits to new researchers by saying it's okay to randomly inject arbitrary-type relationships between various objects and using invented nomenclature for relationship types. There are ISO standards for relationship types.
Thank you for your contribution. At 5 minutes in; we clearly demonstrate that a relationship code is a code in it’s own right and should have evidence to support the relationship coded to it. We could’t be clearer on that point. The last map we showed at the end is not a relationship code but a concept map used by new and experienced researchers to demonstrate visual maps to explain complex phenomena in the data. It is not a relationship[ code but merely a map representing relationships already identified by the researcher. I don’t know from where in the video you drew the conclusion that we were suggesting researchers could “pull the wool over the audiences’ eyes”? UML framework are quantitative tools and do not apply in a qualitative paradigm and the ISO standards you refer to are also for quantitative analysis and not qualitative. Nor are conceptual relationships identified between themes in any way arbitrary. Nor do we suggest researchers should or could “saying it's okay to randomly inject arbitrary-type relationships between various objects and using invented nomenclature for relationship types”. You say we are passing bad habits to novice researchers. I would point out that video is not aimed at novice researchers and does not seek to teach philosophical underpinnings or best practice in qualitative research methods in a twelve minute video. It is the responsibility of institutions to teach these things. The video merely explains how some of these concepts may be applied in the tool.
What a weird comment to leave under a tutorial video. I'm not watching this as an epistemic guide on how to determine the relationships, I'm looking at how to operate the software. The video doesn't claim to be providing instruction on that matter, it claims to be providing instruction on how to operate the software. Leaving angry comments on TH-cam won't make the imposter syndrome go away.
Very helpful video, thanks!
Really clear & helpful, exactly what I needed - thank you!
Thanks. Very clear video.
So helpful; thank-you!
How do you get the project map to show the direction? It only seems to visualize it as a one way arrow, even when you choose associated (no arrows) or informs (arrows on both ends). Can it only be done in a concept map (i.e. manually as a model)?
You cannot choose different arrow shapes in a project map, but have a choice of three types of arrows in a concept map. I hope this response is helpful, but do let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
These relationships are far too arbitrary. I know this is suppose to be "just a demo", but the last relationship you demonstrated had zero empirical data behind the relationship to support it. You can basically invent any relationship you want and pull the wool over the eyes of your audience. You should be using a framework like UML relationships, which are based on the lowest level IDEAS ontological framework. Users should be collecting "evidence-based" relationship data during interviews or existing documentation. I don't want to be a butt head, but you're demonstrating bad habits to new researchers by saying it's okay to randomly inject arbitrary-type relationships between various objects and using invented nomenclature for relationship types. There are ISO standards for relationship types.
Thank you for your contribution. At 5 minutes in; we clearly demonstrate that a relationship code is a code in it’s own right and should have evidence to support the relationship coded to it. We could’t be clearer on that point. The last map we showed at the end is not a relationship code but a concept map used by new and experienced researchers to demonstrate visual maps to explain complex phenomena in the data. It is not a relationship[ code but merely a map representing relationships already identified by the researcher. I don’t know from where in the video you drew the conclusion that we were suggesting researchers could “pull the wool over the audiences’ eyes”? UML framework are quantitative tools and do not apply in a qualitative paradigm and the ISO standards you refer to are also for quantitative analysis and not qualitative. Nor are conceptual relationships identified between themes in any way arbitrary. Nor do we suggest researchers should or could “saying it's okay to randomly inject arbitrary-type relationships between various objects and using invented nomenclature for relationship types”. You say we are passing bad habits to novice researchers. I would point out that video is not aimed at novice researchers and does not seek to teach philosophical underpinnings or best practice in qualitative research methods in a twelve minute video. It is the responsibility of institutions to teach these things. The video merely explains how some of these concepts may be applied in the tool.
What a weird comment to leave under a tutorial video. I'm not watching this as an epistemic guide on how to determine the relationships, I'm looking at how to operate the software. The video doesn't claim to be providing instruction on that matter, it claims to be providing instruction on how to operate the software. Leaving angry comments on TH-cam won't make the imposter syndrome go away.