method, qual data analysis

[a-chappelear]

Changes proposed in this pull request:

Adding Qual data method per tlc ticket #408

security considerations

[Note the any security considerations here, or make note of why there are none]

None

[juliaklindpaintner]

Hey there! I noted a few elements that I think should be changed for consistency before publishing.

I have an overarching question that really is more in relation to the original ticket for content creation, so since that has already been approved, I don't think it has to be a blocker to completing the implementation ticket. But it seems to me that the content here is too high-level to be helpful and very close to the Affinity mapping method. The original ticket was meant to provide instructions for "coding qualitative research data," which I don't think this card really does. I'll tag in @bpdesigns and @MelissaBraxton to weigh in on whether these concerns need to be addressed before publishing this new method card.

[MelissaBraxton]

I agree with Julia's comment that I think we can add a little more detail to make this more actionable. As is, it reads a lot like affinity mapping. I'd encourage folks to start by reading through Boon's great, brief, yet practical guide on coding qual data. I think we could improve the helpfulness of this card if we include some of the details re: coding data, sorting/sifting, recoding to draw out themes.

[bpdesigns]

Thank you @juliaklindpaintner and @MelissaBraxton for your review!

@a-chappelear we will need to update the content on this ticket in light of these reviews. Would you like to take on the content changes for this ticket or just own the implementation?

[a-chappelear]

@bpdesigns I would move this ticket as blocked and re-open the content ticket for it (I agree, it seems similar to the affinity card, many items in that category could be considered a form of qual data analysis...maybe it belongs in a diff category) I'm happy to adjust, & perhaps consult with Boon and/or IA folks if available.

[a-chappelear]

PR pushed, with reworked content per https://github.com/orgs/18F/projects/41/views/1?pane=issue&itemId=23668884

[MelissaBraxton]

@a-chappelear - I'm concerned about the mention of specific proprietary tools (Airtable, Excel) as well as links under resources to for-profit sites. We've been told by OGC that we can't appear to be endorsing products/companies, so I think all refs to proprietary stuff needs to be removed or replaced. We could revise the content under "why" to just say something about spreadsheet tools...

[a-chappelear]

Good points, updated that copy @MelissaBraxton

[MelissaBraxton]

LGTM!

[a-chappelear]

This is ready - but it seems like it needs an approve from @juliaklindpaintner due to comments/resolved.

[edwintorres]

@amandacostello I solved the conflict

[edwintorres]

Hi @juliaklindpaintner

Could you please review your review request to see if it’s done or dismiss it if it’s no longer needed?

I am confident that this has been addressed!