Data Interpretation

After collecting and analyzing the data, the researcher has to accomplish the task of drawing
inferences followed by report writing. This has to be done very carefully, otherwise
conclusions may be drawn and the whole purpose of doing research may get vitiated. It is
only through interpretation that the researcher can expose relations and processes that
underlie his findings (Figure 1).

Interpretation and Containment

Figure 1: Interpretation and Containment

In case of hypotheses testing studies, if hypotheses are tested and upheld several times, the
researcher may arrive at generalizations. But in case the researcher had no hypothesis to start
with, he would try to explain his findings on the basis of some theory. This may at times result
in new questions, leading to further researches. All this analytical information and
consequential inference(s) may well be communicated, preferably through research report,
to the consult of research results who may be either an individual or a group of individuals or
some public private organisation.

Meaning of Interpretation

Interpretation refers to the task of drawing inferences from the collected facts after an
analytical and or experimental study. In fact, it is a search for broader meaning of research
findings. The task of interpretation has two major aspects viz.

1. The effort to establish continuity in research through ulinking the results of a given study
with those of another, and

2. “In one sense, interpretation is concerned with relationships within the collected data,
partially overlapping analysis. Interpretation also extends beyond the data of the study to
inch the results of other research, theory and hypotheses.” Thus, interpenetration is the
device through which the factors that seem to explain what has been observed by
 researcher in the course of the study can be better understood and it also provides a
theoretical conception which can serve as a guide for further researches.

Why Interpretation?

Interpretation is essential for the simple reason that the usefulness and utility of research
findings lie in proper interpretation. It is being considered a basic component of research
process because of the following reasons:

1. It is through interpretation that the researcher can well under- stand the abstract principle
that works beneath his findings. Through this he can ulink up his findings with those of
other studies, having the same abstract principle, and thereby can predict about the
concrete world of events. Fresh inquiries can test these predictions later on. This way the
continuity in research can be maintained.
2. Interpretation leads to the establishment of explanatory concepts that can serve as a
guide for future research studies; it opens new avenues of intellectual adventure and
stimulates the quest for more knowledge.
3. Researcher can better appreciate only through interpretation why his findings are what
they are and can make others to under- stand the real significance of his research findings.
4. The interpretation of the findings of exploratory research study often results into
hypotheses for experimental research and as such interpretation is involved in the
transition from exploratory to experimental research. Since an exploratory study does not
have a hypothesis to start with, the findings of such a study have to be interpreted on a
post factum basis in which case the interpretation is technically described as ‘post factum’
interpretation.

Technique of Interpretation

The task of interpretation is not an easy job, rather it requires a great skill and dexterity on
the part of researcher. Interpretation is an art that one learns through practice and
experience. The researcher may, at times, seek the guidance from experts for accomplishing
the task of interpretation. The technique of interpretation often involves the following steps:

1. Researcher must give reasonable explanations of the relations which he has found and he
must interpret the lines of relationship in terms of the underlying processes and must try
to find out the thread of uniformity that lies under the surface layer of his diversified
research findings. In fact, this is the technique of how generalization should be done and
concepts be formulated.
2. Extraneous information, if collected during the study, must be considered while
interpreting the final results of research study, for it may prove to be a key factor in
understanding the problem under consideration.
3. It is advisable, before embarking upon final interpretation, to, consult someone having
insight into the study and who is frank and honest and will not hesitate to point out
omissions and errors in logical argumentation. Such a consultation will result in correct
interpretation and, thus, will enhance the utility of research results.
4. Researcher must accomplish the task of interpretation only after considering all relevant
factors affecting the problem to avoid false generalization. He must be in no hurry while
interpreting results, for quite often the conclusions, which appear to be all right at the
beginning, may not at all be accurate.

Generalization

Generalization is an essential component of the wider scientific process. In an ideal world,

to test a hypothesis, you would sample an entire population. You would use every possible
variation of an independent variable. In the vast majority of cases, this is not feasible, so
a representative group is chosen to reflect the whole population.

For any experiment, you may be criticized for your generalizations about sample, time and
size. You must ensure that the sample group is as truly representative of the whole
population as possible. For many experiments, time is critical as the behaviors can change
yearly, monthly or even by the hour. The size of the group must allow the statistics to be
safely extrapolated to an entire population (Figure 2).

Generalization in Research

Figure 2: Generalization in Research

There are three types of generalizability that interact to produce probabilistic models. All
of them involve generalizing a treatment or measurement to a population outside of the
original study. Researchers who wish to generalize their claims should try to apply all three
forms to their research, or the strength of their claims will be weakened.

In one type of generalizability, researchers determine whether a specific treatment will

produce the same results in different circumstances. To do this, they must decide if an
aspect within the original environment, a factor beyond the treatment, generated the
particular result. This will establish how flexibly the treatment adapts to new situations.
Higher adaptability means that the treatment is generalizable to a greater variety of
situations. To responsibly generalize that this heuristic is effective, a researcher would
need to test the same prewriting exercise in a variety of educational settings at the college
level, using different teachers, students, and environments. If the same positive results
are produced, the treatment is generalizable.

A second form of generalizability focuses on measurements rather than treatments. For

a result to be considered generalizable outside of the test group, it must produce the same
results with different forms of measurement. In terms of the heuristic example above, the
findings will be more generalizable if the same results are obtained when assessed "with
questions having a slightly different wording, or when we use a six-point scale instead of
a nine-point scale".

A third type of generalizability concerns the subjects of the test situation. Although the
results of an experiment may be internally valid, that is, applicable to the group tested, in
many situations the results cannot be generalized beyond that particular group.
Researchers who hope to generalize their results to a larger population should ensure that
their test group is relatively large and randomly chosen. However, researchers should
consider the fact that test populations of over 10,000 subjects do not significantly increase
generalizability.