Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:01:33 +0100
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         mf1@UKC.AC.UK
Subject:      re: Computers and Qualitative Research

B. Jones writes:

>Computers are electronic devices that respond to two states: on and
>off.
>This is where the binary arithmetic of 1s and 0s comes from.
>You can translate those 1s and 0s into 16-bit arrays and derive a
>hexidecmial coding scheme that allows you to differentiate between
>the various keys on a typewriter keyboard, and you can extend that
>addressing scheme so that you get function and control and
>alternative keys, but, at the center, computers are simply machines
>for crunching numbers - however they may be coded to match the
>alphabet.

Computers are material implementations of human models for representing
models of models for representing signs and manipulating signs. There
have been many approaches to implementing such models, and not all
depend on differenting two states. Even in the particular quasi-model
Brian is referring to - representing information in terms of unique
state models - rarely are the things he takes to be numbers numbers.
These are simply identifiers, without fixed meaning unless in context.
If I take the hexidecimal digit pair '20' this sign can relate to a
large number of things, even within the confines of one implementation,
say the Mostek 6502 microprocessor. '20' can be, in the right context
the GOSUBroutine instruction, and as such establishes a context which
will affect the interpretation of the following signs. In other
contexts '20' can be the name of a place to store other signs, e.g.
address 20. In the 6502 this address has special properties with
respect to other operation codes because it resides on the zero-page.
'20' can be a part of the name of another location, say address 2020.
'20' can be literal data, which means that it can have any arbitrary
interpretation that the programmer might want to assign it. For
instance I can use '20'as a sign for the signifier 'dog', or 'Brian
Jones'. It could be used to signify a 'space' or 'blank', as it does in
ASCII. It could even be the number 20 (radix 20) or 32 (radix 10) or
40(radix 8) or 1010 (radix 2) etc.

The point of this is that this form of naming identifies patterns. The patterns
have interpretations that have nothing to do with numberness (unless the
programmer designs it such), but rather with.
uniqueness.

Computers have no special ability to work with numbers over other possible
referents. All arithmetic capabilities are added by programmers (or engineers)
by modelling arithmetic procedures. Indeed the ones used are very similar to
those you learned in elementary school. The numeric capabilities used by 'bean
counters' are usually added with additional software or hardware, and are not
intrinsic to a 'computer'.

Any analysis of computing which derives from the '0 and 1' model as a
disqualifer for qualitative research is likely to represent a political
view regarding numbers, rather than intrinsic suitability.

>Precisely. But, as Joseph Weizenbaum so cogently notes in his book:
>*Computer Power and Human Reason*, those symbols still have to be
>capable of being encoded, which, to a certain extent, predetermines
>what kinds of questions one can ask of and get answered by computer
>databases.

Symbols are not encoded.  Symbols are modelled and the models encoded
by signs. Weizenbaum's usage is a slipperyness that has evolved in the
vocabulary of people who have been concerned with 'symbolic computing',
which has nearly as long a history as 'numeric computing'.

Brian is quite right to note that this modelling procedure
predetermines what kinds of questions one can ask. This is the purpose
of models, and as far as I know it is impossible to ask any questions
at all without a model. Anyone who believes that they are
'interpreting' a text only in terms of the text are deluding
themselves.

However there are only two basic limitations I am aware of in models
represented on a digital computer. Firstly, these must be discrete, eg
continuous gradations cannot be implemented. However, this should only
affect models with numeric entailments which require continuity.
Secondly, these must be finite, an infinite number of units cannot be
implemented (although 'infinity' can be). Again, this should have
mainly numeric consequences.

The real limitations in computer application are in our ability to
produce descriptive models of symbolic relationships. However, this
only applies to applications where the computer will 'do' the analysis
in proxy for you, following a plan which you (or a programmer) has
designed. As a tool which produces results which augment your
analysis,  there is much more scope.

These can be very simple, and still quite useful. I am an
anthropologist, and have perhaps 5000 pages of notes over five trips to
Pakistan, arranged for the most part in chronological order. If I want
to check on some point it is very time consuming to thumb through the
notes, but rather easy to use a textual database to identify sections
based on search terms. I can assemble the entire set of references and
identify future objectives based on reading these over, going back to
the notes to check context etc. I am quite happy to generalise from an
'n of 1', if the n is sufficently compelling, but I also like to
examine a range of n's as well.

On the other hand I am not particularly adverse to 'bean counting' if
there are beans to be meaningfully counted. I can see no excuse for
dismissing information just because it is 'qualitative' or
'quantitative' in nature. This is getting off the track however, since
it has little to do with computing.


Michael D. Fischer
Centre for Social Anthropology and Computing
University of Kent, Canterbury
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU