The Data Collection and Analysis Sequence
Two documents of one teaching week each set out an order of work, and the two orders do not agree with each other or with the week that follows. This page reproduces both, marks every disagreement, and shows where the sequence stops dead.
Two lists, from two documents, for one week
The material for this topic comes in two families. The slide deck supplies a five-step procedure and a set of questions to ask before you settle on a method. The study notes supply a five-question frame for collection and analysis and then close on a diagram. Neither document refers to the other, and the two are not written to the same specification.
Take them as two partial answers to the same problem rather than as one sequence. Read together they cover more ground than either alone; read as a single procedure they contradict each other at the point where planning becomes execution. The methods themselves — what you would actually be sequencing — are catalogued on Data Collection Methods: Data as Evidence.
The five steps in data collection
- Define the variables
- Collect from appropriate sources
- Organise
- Present in relevant form
- Analyse to reach conclusions
The lead sentence above the steps is worth keeping with them: "There is a wide range of data collection methods available some of which are capable of collecting either qualitative or quantitative data." That sentence is the only place in the week where the two data types are held in one frame, and it makes no attempt to say which methods do which.
Step 3 is the one most often skipped in practice and the one the source says least about. Organising collected data is named as a discrete step and given no method, no format and no tool. The organising work in a real project — file naming, transcription order, version control of a dataset, the register that ties a response back to the participant who gave it — is invisible in this material and will not do itself.
Eight questions before you fix a method
The slide that follows the steps carries a lead-in — "Ask yourself the following questions:" — and eight questions. They are framed as considerations rather than as a checklist with a pass mark, and the source states no count and does not number them.
THE EIGHT METHOD-SELECTION QUESTIONS AND WHAT SITS BEHIND EACH
| The question, as printed | What the source supplies behind it |
|---|---|
| "Does the method meet the purpose or objective of the project?" | No test of fit; the purpose-to-method link is asserted, not worked |
| "Will the information you gain help you reach conclusions?" | No criterion for sufficiency of information |
| "Is there sufficient time to undertake appropriate analytical methods?" | No analytical method is named in the week |
| "Are your methods valid and reliable?" | Neither term is defined here; the definitions sit in an earlier week |
| "Do cost and time constraints restrict methods available to you?" | No cost figures, ranges or comparisons anywhere in the week |
| "Have you thoroughly planned the what, how, when, who of implementation?" | Four planning dimensions named, none elaborated |
| "Have you considered appropriate management and analysis?" | Bare label — "management" is not defined at this point |
| "Have you considered data security and storage issues?" | No retention period, medium, anonymisation or consent linkage anywhere in the week |
Later slides in the same week do require the researcher to protect the data and to explain who has access to it, but no procedure is attached to either instruction.
The five questions the notes ask instead
The study notes approach the same territory from the other end, under the heading "How will the information be collected and analysed?". They pose five questions and answer none of them directly.
- "What/who are the data sources?"
- "What types of data are most appropriate?"
- "What are the most appropriate methods of data collection?"
- "How will the data be analysed and presented in order to address the key questions?"
- "What ethical issues are involved in the research and how will they addressed?"
Two things about that list are worth recording. The fifth question is ungrammatical as printed — "how will they addressed?" omits a verb — in both supplied copies of the notes. And the five appear as a formatted list in only one of the two copies; in the other they run together as ordinary paragraphs, so a reader working from that copy may not register that there are five discrete questions at all.
Question 5 has the same shape. Ethical issues are raised as a planning question and no framework, code, approval process or principle is named anywhere in the week to answer it with.
Where the sequence stops
The notes end on three short passages. The process of data collection and analysis "can be termed 'data management'", the reader is pointed at a diagram called the Data Management Framework, and the diagram is credited to a 2006 evaluation text at page 99, with the parenthetical concession that "(This was an evaluation project)".
The parenthetical concession matters too. The framework comes from an evaluation study rather than from research methodology, and the source neither says what an evaluation project is nor what must change when the framework is applied to a research project instead. A separate figure covering the same ground — key evaluation questions, assembly of evidence, analysis and reporting — is treated on The Evidence Assembly and Analysis Model.
Turning the fragments into a usable order of work
The steps below combine the two lists and close the gaps the source leaves open with explicit decisions rather than with invented content. This is the page's construction and not a source procedure; every item is marked with what the source does and does not give you.
A working sequence, with the source's own gaps made visible
Fix what you are reaching conclusions about
The source says define your variables. If your design has variables, define them. If it does not, write down the themes or cases you expect to reach conclusions about instead, and note in your methodology that the material's step 1 does not apply to qualitative designs.
Run both question sets before you choose a method
Take the eight questions here and the earlier week's nine together. Answer the ethics question the eight leave out, and answer the data security and storage question the earlier nine leave out.
Name the data sources and the data types
The notes' first two questions. Answer them in writing before instrument design begins, because both constrain the instrument and neither is recoverable afterwards.
Decide the organising method before collection starts
Step 3 exists in the source and has no content. Decide now how responses will be stored, named, versioned and linked back to participants, and record the decision — it is also the only practical answer to the source's data security question.
Choose your order for presentation and analysis, and say which you chose
The material supports both orders and reconciles neither. Pick one, state it in your methodology, and be able to say why. Analysis-then-presentation is the order the following week's content follows.
Answer the presentation question the week never answers
"How will the data be analysed and presented in order to address the key questions?" needs an answer from you, sourced elsewhere. The week that should carry it has no study notes.
What to carry forward
- Five steps: define the variables, collect, organise, present, analyse — with organising given no method at all.
- The step order puts presentation before analysis and the next week of the same subject reverses it. Both stand; state which you followed.
- Step 1 presupposes variables, which the same week's qualitative approaches do not have. No alternative first step is offered.
- Eight method-selection questions, on a mistitled slide, that drop the ethics question an earlier week asked explicitly.
- The notes' five questions include one — how will data be analysed and presented — that the week never answers.
- The sequence ends on an unreadable diagram and a term, data management, that the next week defines in a way that does not overlap.
Frequently asked questions
What are the five steps in data collection according to the source?
Define the variables for which you want to reach conclusions; collect the data from appropriate sources; organise the data collected; present the data in relevant form; and analyse the data to reach conclusions. The list is attributed on the slide to a 2011 statistics text for managers, and the source neither numbers the steps nor states that there are five.
Should I present my data before analysing it or after?
The material supports both and reconciles neither: the five steps place presentation at step 4 and analysis at step 5, while the following week is structured as analysis first and presentation second. Choose one, state the choice in your methodology and be consistent. The later week's content order is the one most readers will expect.
The first step asks me to define variables and my project is qualitative. What do I do?
The source gives no alternative first step, and the same week's own qualitative approaches produce themes rather than variables. Record what you intend to reach conclusions about in the vocabulary your approach actually uses, and note in your methodology that the step does not transfer. Do not invent variables to satisfy a step.
Does the week tell me how to organise collected data?
No. Organising is named as step 3 and given no method, format or tool. Its practical content — file naming, transcription order, dataset versioning, and the register linking a response to a participant — is not in the material, and it overlaps with the data security and storage question the same week raises and also leaves unanswered.
What is the Data Management Framework?
It is a diagram the study notes point to, credited to a 2006 evaluation text at page 99. The image supplies no extractable text — no boxes, labels, arrows or stages — so its contents cannot be reported from the supplied material. Obtain and cite the original text if you need it.
Which definition of data management should I use?
Say which one you mean every time you use the phrase. This week defines it as the process of data collection and analysis; the next week defines it as becoming familiar with software, logging in, entering data and cleaning data. The two definitions do not overlap and the source never reconciles them.
References and source attribution
- Levine, D., Berenson, M., Krehbiel, T. & Stephan, D. 2011, Statistics for Managers, 6th ed., Global Edition, Pearson Higher Education — cited in the supplied source as the origin of the five steps in data collection.
- Owen, J. 2006, Program Evaluation, Allen & Unwin, p. 99 — cited in the supplied source as the origin of the Data Management Framework diagram, which is not legible in the supplied files.
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London.
- The supplied teaching source: the week 10 slide deck on collecting data and both copies of the week 10 study notes on gathering your data, used here as the basis for every statement attributed to "the source".
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Turn the five steps and the eight questions into a data collection plan for my project.
- Which order should my methodology chapter use for analysis and presentation, and how do I justify it?
- Draft the organising and storage decisions that step 3 requires but does not describe.
- What does this material fail to answer about analysing and presenting data?
- Combine the two method-selection question sets into one checklist, including what each omits.