MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7068403935

Attended

2010· other· en· W7068403935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAUSpace (Athabasca University) · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)CertificationMarketing researchScope (computer science)Research designMarket researchTracking (education)Data collectionKey (lock)Research proposal
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both courses are core requirements for obtaining the Certified Marketing Research Professional (CMRP) designation through the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA). This Canadian designation is well sought after by research practitioners in the marketing research, program evaluation and institutional analysis industry.
\n
\nThe funding was used to claim expenses associated with course registrations and travel fees to and from the course venues. No papers were presented as this was not a conference.
\n
\nThis report provides an overview of the topic areas covered in the two courses and their relevance to my role as an Institutional Analyst with the Office of Institutional Studies.
\n2.0\tMarketing Research Design: An Applied Course
\n
\nThe Marketing Research Design course examined key research designs used in marketing research and provided criteria for choosing the ideal research design based on specific research needs. It quickly covered the key theoretical concepts and then focused on case studies. 
\n
\nThe major topics covered in this core course were:
\n
\n1.\tUnderstanding the need for marketing research
\n2.\tDefining the objectives of the research
\n3.\tResearch Designs
\nExploratory, conclusive, and tracking research
\nCross-sectional and latitudinal design
\nSecondary and primary research
\nTools of data collection
\n4.\tSelecting the research design and data collection tools
\n5.\tElements of a research plan/proposal
\n6.\tCosting issues related to different research designs
\n
\nCourse Relevance 
\n
\nThe course was fairly broad and introductory in scope which is in line with its positioning as a required core course. In a sense, it was a good confirmation and refresher of my existing knowledge and an eye opener to other research design areas that I have not utilized frequently in my career. 
\n
\nResearch design is an integral part of my role as an institutional analyst with the Office of Institutional Studies. We serve a wide client base across the university. As such, our clients’ research needs are many and varied, and each need requires a tailored research approach/design based on key objectives. For example, many of the program reviews we undertake have a qualitative component such as telephone, online or paper based surveys and qualitative component such as moderating focus groups or conducting key informant interviews. All of these research methods were discussed at length and case studies were presented to provide different real life scenarios which call for different research designs. Samples of data collection tools, such as sample surveys or focus group moderator’s guide, were also presented.
\n
\nThe topic areas covering latitudinal design have implications for research on the effectiveness of advertising. For example, measuring awareness of Athabasca University among a population and then holding an advertising campaign after which the level of awareness is measured among the same population to identify advertising impact. The Office of Institutional Studies has been exploring such latitudinal approaches in measuring advertising effectiveness and this course was a valuable informer of best practices for this approach.
\n3.0\tQualitative Marketing Research
\n
\nThe Qualitative Marketing Research course examined the theory and application of some of the most frequently used qualitative research techniques and it considered the key criteria used in selecting a qualitative research design. It provided an overview on budgeting for and using qualitative research for advertising, idea generation, product development and customer/employee satisfaction.
\n
\nThe major topics covered in this core course were:
\n
\n1.\tFocus groups, dyads, triads and in-depth interviews
\n2.\tDeveloping discussion guides
\n3.\tUsing and selecting the best research design
\n4.\tCosting qualitative research
\n5.\tMaking the right demands of recruiters
\n6.\tListening and observing for maximum benefit
\n7.\tTranslating qualitative research into actionable reports
\n8.\tNew and innovative moderating and projective techniques
\n
\n
\nCourse Relevance 
\n
\nAs an Instititutional Analyst with the Office of Institutional Studies I planned three usability testing focus group sessions at Athabasca University Central, the Edmonton Learning Centre, and the Calgary Learning Centre. The purpose of the sessions was to solicit staff feedback on a new staff portal to be modeled after the myAU portal for students. As such, I designed the sample distribution of participants in the three geographies based on job titles, designed recruitment screeners to invite focus group participants and supervised the recruitment activities undertaken at the Office of Institutional Studies. I also designed the focus group moderator’s guide and facilitated the focus group discussions. 
\n
\nIn light of future focus groups which are anticipated to be undertaken by our office, my attendance at the Qualitative Marketing Research course was extremely relevant. The course explored various focus group setups such as one on one interviews, dyads (holding a focus group with two participants), and triads (holding a focus group with three participants). Holding a series of triads as opposed to a single big focus group was recommended for future usability testing to allow for more depth in engaging with participants, an approach that could be adopted at a future focus group being planned at the Centre for Innovative Management.
\n
\nThe course also explored projective techniques such as “personification” to engage participants who have difficulty in describing a product or a service. For example, a participant could be asked: “If this product was a person, what type of a person would it be?” The cited attributes for the person would then be projected back onto the product. This technique could have wide applications at Athabasca University to open up respondents who are either introverted or have difficulty expressing their views on certain products or services under evaluation.
\n
\nThere was also a discussion on recruitment screeners. Various examples were cited based on various combinations of demographics and psychographics depending on research design, again an eye opener to future focus group recruitments at Athabasca University.
\n
\nAll in all, this course was very relevant to my position and equipped me with new knowledge that could be applied to future qualitative research projects designed and managed by the Office of Institutional Studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAUSpace (Athabasca University)Same topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207