I've been meaning to post about the Getting Things Done (GTD) program that I've been using the past year or so. This blog post from the GTD team itself probably says it better than I could.
http://www.gtdtimes.com/2013/08/15/gtd-lists-101/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GtdTimes+%28GTD+Times%29
Friday, August 16, 2013
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
If only all our respondents were so conscientious
Homer (on phone to buddy): Hey Wayne! Wanna go out for a drink tonight?
Wayne: Sorry. I was tipsy when a telephone survey called me last night, so I told them to call back tonight for better answers.
Need to find episode number for this one...
Wayne: Sorry. I was tipsy when a telephone survey called me last night, so I told them to call back tonight for better answers.
Need to find episode number for this one...
Humorous blog posts and a note on efficiency
A year or so ago I started a blog to catalog all the funny and interesting (i.e., teachable) references to social science and statistics I saw in popular media. If you're a Simpsons fan like me, you know there are more than a few great Simpsosn stats/research/science jokes.
In the past year I've also come to an efficiency and organization realization. For tasks and items that are very closely related, it's better to have fewer documents/sources/records whenever possible (e.g., one folder with clearly named files that holds all our analysis work rather than multiple files sorted by date or type of output, or one running project log document rather than individual notes by date). In that vein I decided to stop posting to that my other blog and just post these interesting and funny stats/research/science references here, just to make life easier. I'll tag these posts with either "pop culture" or "humor" (or both) depending on conent. Hope you enjoy.
Here are links to the few posts I made at that blog.
Good one-liner about charts and organizational research from The Cleveland Show.
http://cultureofmethods.blogspot.com/2013/02/cleveland-show-2-17-13.html
I'm not sure if the joke here is on social scientists, Germans, or German social scientists, but I love this focus group bit from Mad Men. Also is a good joke on standardized question wording.
http://cultureofmethods.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-series-mad-men-now-streaming-on.html
We can always count on SNL's Weekend Update for some good popular science humor. This one is about parenting. Could be a good joke for a lecture on sampling.
http://cultureofmethods.blogspot.com/2012/05/parenting.html
In the past year I've also come to an efficiency and organization realization. For tasks and items that are very closely related, it's better to have fewer documents/sources/records whenever possible (e.g., one folder with clearly named files that holds all our analysis work rather than multiple files sorted by date or type of output, or one running project log document rather than individual notes by date). In that vein I decided to stop posting to that my other blog and just post these interesting and funny stats/research/science references here, just to make life easier. I'll tag these posts with either "pop culture" or "humor" (or both) depending on conent. Hope you enjoy.
Here are links to the few posts I made at that blog.
Good one-liner about charts and organizational research from The Cleveland Show.
http://cultureofmethods.blogspot.com/2013/02/cleveland-show-2-17-13.html
I'm not sure if the joke here is on social scientists, Germans, or German social scientists, but I love this focus group bit from Mad Men. Also is a good joke on standardized question wording.
http://cultureofmethods.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-series-mad-men-now-streaming-on.html
We can always count on SNL's Weekend Update for some good popular science humor. This one is about parenting. Could be a good joke for a lecture on sampling.
http://cultureofmethods.blogspot.com/2012/05/parenting.html
An interesting video summary on motivation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Motivation is part of the decision process involved in survey response that hasn't been explored in great depth. This is at least a neat overview of motivation and performance if not directly related to surveys.
Motivation is part of the decision process involved in survey response that hasn't been explored in great depth. This is at least a neat overview of motivation and performance if not directly related to surveys.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Tips for making life easier and (hopefully) becoming more efficient
Some of these are simple things, some require more forehtought and behavior changes. I'll update them over time.
1) Learn to use keyboard shortcuts for all your software. Mousing may be more intuitive, but it always takes longer.
2) Setup "repositories" for things you use repeatedly like your personal information, key phrases or descriptions that you share with people a lot, code snippets that you often use. You don't have to automate anything, just save them somewhere you know you can find them when you need them.
3) Start using voice recognition software. A lot of people remember when its performance was spotty, but even the built-in Windows VR software works really well now. Speaking is quicker than typing for anything more than a few words.
4) Spend the time to develop an organizational system. I prefer GTD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done) but others probably work well too.
5) As part of 4, develop good work and organizational habits. Easier said than done, but having things in their place and some grounding routines makes life simpler and smoother (more on this in David Allen's GTD book).
6) Keep project logs for every project (personal or professional) you're committed to seeing through to completion. A few minutes taking a note each day or each time you work on the project can be a lifesaver when you have to come back to the project days, weeks, or months later. You'll certainly spend more than a few minutes trying to remember and find what you did if you don't have those notes.
Any other pointers to share?
1) Learn to use keyboard shortcuts for all your software. Mousing may be more intuitive, but it always takes longer.
2) Setup "repositories" for things you use repeatedly like your personal information, key phrases or descriptions that you share with people a lot, code snippets that you often use. You don't have to automate anything, just save them somewhere you know you can find them when you need them.
3) Start using voice recognition software. A lot of people remember when its performance was spotty, but even the built-in Windows VR software works really well now. Speaking is quicker than typing for anything more than a few words.
4) Spend the time to develop an organizational system. I prefer GTD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done) but others probably work well too.
5) As part of 4, develop good work and organizational habits. Easier said than done, but having things in their place and some grounding routines makes life simpler and smoother (more on this in David Allen's GTD book).
6) Keep project logs for every project (personal or professional) you're committed to seeing through to completion. A few minutes taking a note each day or each time you work on the project can be a lifesaver when you have to come back to the project days, weeks, or months later. You'll certainly spend more than a few minutes trying to remember and find what you did if you don't have those notes.
Any other pointers to share?
Friday, May 31, 2013
Survey Analytics Anyone?
I couldn't resist cross-posting this. I've read some of Stephen Few's dashboard work, and have his blog delivered to my inbox. This post reflected something I've been working with over the past few years (less so now that I'm not at Census). Specifically, he talks about the idea of a "data scientist"...something different from a statistician or researcher...someone with strong statistical and programming skills, but also business acumen. Someone that knows how to find, collect, develop, and analyze data to answer important business and operations questions. It's a niche that seems over-looked and under-appreciated sometimes.
http://www.perceptualedge.com/blog/?p=1719
http://www.perceptualedge.com/blog/?p=1719
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Mendeley Merging with Elsevier
I fell in love with Mendeley first, but moved to Zotero for some reasons that are too hard to explain here. Both are great, but I think I'll go back to Medely after reading this. I've always liked their UI and group features better, as well as their metadata extraction process.
Plus now they're giving 5GB of storage with the free account.
http://blog.mendeley.com/start-up-life/team-mendeley-is-joining-elsevier/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MendeleyBlog+%28Mendeley+Blog%29
Plus now they're giving 5GB of storage with the free account.
http://blog.mendeley.com/start-up-life/team-mendeley-is-joining-elsevier/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MendeleyBlog+%28Mendeley+Blog%29
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Thoughts on paradata costs and sparked by James Wagner
I wanted to post a comment on my friend/colleague James' blog, but found that what I wanted to say took up too many characters! (not uncommon). Here's the original post...my response below is as if a comment...http://jameswagnersurv.blogspot.com/2013/03/cost-of-paradata.html
**********
I love the train of thought (just shows we're "nerds of a feather")!
I think first breaking things into fixed and variable costs is helpful as usual. The cost of setting up the system v. the cost of interviewer time to carry out the observations.
I also think you can get reasonable cost estimates (or at least data for those estimates) by good old-fashioned pilot testing. Don't even program it in CATI to start, just have interviewers try it and record how long it takes (e.g., look at average int duration with and without the new obs). Or if you're not worried about Hawthorne effects, send an observer. At Census (and most large-scale operations I imagine), it was hard to impart the idea that little pretests are possible and helpful (I'd argue essential) for anything that's worth doing full-scale. There was always a bias toward "on/off" thinking...and toward assessing the effects of a new method or tool ALL the interviewing staff at once (and with little data to backup the assessment). Made it hard to try things like what you're talking about.
A few other reflections on iwr obs (not costs per se)...
-If the iwr obs come before the interview (like an assessment of the neighborhood or HU), they shouldn't distract from the interview.
-It's easy to spin stories about how these obs will be hard for interviewers to do, mess with their flow, etc., but your fine institution has shown us that this is naive thinking (of course it's also naive to throw too much new stuff at iwrs without prep, forethought, and testing).
-In trying to pitch additions to Census's CHI, I tried to answer the new questions we were proposing for my own neighborhood. I found that it took a few 10's of seconds to actually answer the questions, and the "observation" required was all done just by walking through the neighborhood anyway. We know that interviewers "scope out" (at least perceive) the neighborhoods they're in, so asking them to record their obs shouldn't be too hard if the questions are good and few. We know there is variability b/c they're ratings. A reliability sample could establish how "good" the ratings are. If we want detailed obs like LA FANS, or really technical ratings (e.g., how many feet is it from the HH's door to the nearest corner) it's a different story.
-For HU obs, interviewers a likely making the observations as they drive into or walk around the neighborhood, so their laptop may not even be open yet. Timing data would look different than if you required them to start the obs with the laptop open. Though the latter seems like overkill (I'd rather catch the obs the iwrs are doing naturally than setup something strict that really feels like "a new job to do").
-If the iwr is dovetailing "assessment" of the area with driving/walking in, there's some overlap in the costs (travel v. rating).
-Obs during the interview are a completely different story. Whatever's done has to fit within the flow of the CAPI screens (e.g., a pop-up screen that says "does the R see bored right now") and the interviewers personal style flow. A the same time, it can't throw the interviewer off pace. An interesting UI task, but very possible I think, depending on the CAPI system. Interviewers memories of interactions degrade just like respondents memories of facts and experiences. So it might be possible for iwrs to record some high-level perceptions/feeling about the interview IMMEDIATELY after the interview...global assessments about R involvement, interest, boredom, etc. If you want more detail levels, post-hoc coding from audio or video (or use of a second observer) may be better. This would all cost more, of course :) But again, if cost is the concern, you'd have to consider (calculate) whether recording and coding audio using some student coders is more than the cost to design, develop, and implement coding that would be done live by interviewers right in the interview. If there's one thing I've learned from survey meth, it's "it depends" and the specifics are so important in making any design decision.
Neat stuff!
**********
I love the train of thought (just shows we're "nerds of a feather")!
I think first breaking things into fixed and variable costs is helpful as usual. The cost of setting up the system v. the cost of interviewer time to carry out the observations.
I also think you can get reasonable cost estimates (or at least data for those estimates) by good old-fashioned pilot testing. Don't even program it in CATI to start, just have interviewers try it and record how long it takes (e.g., look at average int duration with and without the new obs). Or if you're not worried about Hawthorne effects, send an observer. At Census (and most large-scale operations I imagine), it was hard to impart the idea that little pretests are possible and helpful (I'd argue essential) for anything that's worth doing full-scale. There was always a bias toward "on/off" thinking...and toward assessing the effects of a new method or tool ALL the interviewing staff at once (and with little data to backup the assessment). Made it hard to try things like what you're talking about.
A few other reflections on iwr obs (not costs per se)...
-If the iwr obs come before the interview (like an assessment of the neighborhood or HU), they shouldn't distract from the interview.
-It's easy to spin stories about how these obs will be hard for interviewers to do, mess with their flow, etc., but your fine institution has shown us that this is naive thinking (of course it's also naive to throw too much new stuff at iwrs without prep, forethought, and testing).
-In trying to pitch additions to Census's CHI, I tried to answer the new questions we were proposing for my own neighborhood. I found that it took a few 10's of seconds to actually answer the questions, and the "observation" required was all done just by walking through the neighborhood anyway. We know that interviewers "scope out" (at least perceive) the neighborhoods they're in, so asking them to record their obs shouldn't be too hard if the questions are good and few. We know there is variability b/c they're ratings. A reliability sample could establish how "good" the ratings are. If we want detailed obs like LA FANS, or really technical ratings (e.g., how many feet is it from the HH's door to the nearest corner) it's a different story.
-For HU obs, interviewers a likely making the observations as they drive into or walk around the neighborhood, so their laptop may not even be open yet. Timing data would look different than if you required them to start the obs with the laptop open. Though the latter seems like overkill (I'd rather catch the obs the iwrs are doing naturally than setup something strict that really feels like "a new job to do").
-If the iwr is dovetailing "assessment" of the area with driving/walking in, there's some overlap in the costs (travel v. rating).
-Obs during the interview are a completely different story. Whatever's done has to fit within the flow of the CAPI screens (e.g., a pop-up screen that says "does the R see bored right now") and the interviewers personal style flow. A the same time, it can't throw the interviewer off pace. An interesting UI task, but very possible I think, depending on the CAPI system. Interviewers memories of interactions degrade just like respondents memories of facts and experiences. So it might be possible for iwrs to record some high-level perceptions/feeling about the interview IMMEDIATELY after the interview...global assessments about R involvement, interest, boredom, etc. If you want more detail levels, post-hoc coding from audio or video (or use of a second observer) may be better. This would all cost more, of course :) But again, if cost is the concern, you'd have to consider (calculate) whether recording and coding audio using some student coders is more than the cost to design, develop, and implement coding that would be done live by interviewers right in the interview. If there's one thing I've learned from survey meth, it's "it depends" and the specifics are so important in making any design decision.
Neat stuff!
Monday, March 4, 2013
How Do You Access Census Bureau Statistics?
An email from the US Census Bureau the other day asked me How Do You Access our Statistics?
People have been asking this question of the CB forever! Let's see if they've made it any easier. I have to admit that in my 2.75 years I didn't learn how to use the various data tools like American Fact Finder because they weren't relevant to my job. The last time I looked at AFF and tried to help a friend it was pretty rough going...even in the "new and improved" version. Let's hope they've made some strides.
I'll post more if I get a chance to look at this, but I still have few occasions to need Census stats.
Share your favorite and least favorite Census tools. What other resources, like www.socialexplorer.org do you use?
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Researchers are social?!?!?
There seem to be two (at least) competing social media sites for academics and researchers out there.
Academia.edu
A couple of years ago, I stumbled on Academia.edu. I was trying to find an easy place to call my primary professional web home, and it seemed like a good fit. I liked its intuitive interface, built-in analytics (i.e., find out how many profile views and individual article views you've had (by country!), get emailed when someone finds your profile or paper), and a light social media component...no messaging, chat, etc, but you can follow colleagues and get a "news feed like" update on the work they post. I still use it and consider it my primary professional website. You can find me here: http://ucla.academia.edu/MattJans.
ResearchGate.net
Last week a Google alert sent me to ResearchGate. I joined only so I could reply to someone's question (I'm a softy for anyone looking for survey methodology textbooks), but as I was poking around I noticed that it has features for sharing files and collaborating. Light features...nothing like a complete online collaboration site, but more than Academia.edu. It also has a lot of "profile" features like Academia.edu, built-in analytics, etc. You can post your papers and talks here, (and I assume find out when people view them like Academia.edu...haven't reviewed or tested).
I also noticed that a couple thousand people from UCLA were already on ResearchGate, and there's some sort of campus-wide project on "computing uncertainty"...variance anyone? It's nice to have cyber connections with local colleagues! There's a very small presence on the UCLA Yammer page (Yammer was HUGE at Census...hopefully it still is). Here's my ResearchGate profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matt_Jans/?ev=hdr_xprf
A couple others...
I'm reminded that Sage started a similar site a few years back...I think this is the site (http://srmo.sagepub.com), but I wasn't able to log in. When it first arrived, I remember thinking that a) the site was very Euro and qualitative-heavy, and b) it felt like 85% of Facebook (some of the features, but not all of the features...I really just wanted its groups to be worked into Facebook) Thus, I never really got into it. If this is the same site, it looks like they've switched focus a little from being a social/prof'l hub for researchers to being more of a "research hub"...Could be helpful with group projects.
Last, and certainly not least is my favorite reference manager software, Mendeley (www.mendeley.com). For logistical reasons I mostly use Zotero right now, but I have it setup to sync with my Mendeley account so all my articles are in both places. Mendeley takes the notion of a desktop and web-based article repository and puts Facebook (the good parts) on top of it. You can create groups, share articles, etc. It's desktop user interface is superb, and it has a "watched folder" function that lest you drop PDFs into a designated folder and have them automatically imported into the software, metadata extracted and put into the correct (usually) reference fields, and synced to your online storage. (Aside: If Zotero could catch up on the interface and watched folder concept, they could actually rival Mendeley).
Here's my Mendeley profile: http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/matt-jans/. I started a couple of groups to share references with colleagues, but I have to admit that I don't use them actively. I've had mixed success bringing colleagues into Mendeley for various reasons.
If you have any favorite professional and research social media sites, please share! Also, point out the bad ones so I don't waste time signing up :) Thanks!
Academia.edu
A couple of years ago, I stumbled on Academia.edu. I was trying to find an easy place to call my primary professional web home, and it seemed like a good fit. I liked its intuitive interface, built-in analytics (i.e., find out how many profile views and individual article views you've had (by country!), get emailed when someone finds your profile or paper), and a light social media component...no messaging, chat, etc, but you can follow colleagues and get a "news feed like" update on the work they post. I still use it and consider it my primary professional website. You can find me here: http://ucla.academia.edu/MattJans.
ResearchGate.net
Last week a Google alert sent me to ResearchGate. I joined only so I could reply to someone's question (I'm a softy for anyone looking for survey methodology textbooks), but as I was poking around I noticed that it has features for sharing files and collaborating. Light features...nothing like a complete online collaboration site, but more than Academia.edu. It also has a lot of "profile" features like Academia.edu, built-in analytics, etc. You can post your papers and talks here, (and I assume find out when people view them like Academia.edu...haven't reviewed or tested).
I also noticed that a couple thousand people from UCLA were already on ResearchGate, and there's some sort of campus-wide project on "computing uncertainty"...variance anyone? It's nice to have cyber connections with local colleagues! There's a very small presence on the UCLA Yammer page (Yammer was HUGE at Census...hopefully it still is). Here's my ResearchGate profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matt_Jans/?ev=hdr_xprf
A couple others...
I'm reminded that Sage started a similar site a few years back...I think this is the site (http://srmo.sagepub.com), but I wasn't able to log in. When it first arrived, I remember thinking that a) the site was very Euro and qualitative-heavy, and b) it felt like 85% of Facebook (some of the features, but not all of the features...I really just wanted its groups to be worked into Facebook) Thus, I never really got into it. If this is the same site, it looks like they've switched focus a little from being a social/prof'l hub for researchers to being more of a "research hub"...Could be helpful with group projects.
Last, and certainly not least is my favorite reference manager software, Mendeley (www.mendeley.com). For logistical reasons I mostly use Zotero right now, but I have it setup to sync with my Mendeley account so all my articles are in both places. Mendeley takes the notion of a desktop and web-based article repository and puts Facebook (the good parts) on top of it. You can create groups, share articles, etc. It's desktop user interface is superb, and it has a "watched folder" function that lest you drop PDFs into a designated folder and have them automatically imported into the software, metadata extracted and put into the correct (usually) reference fields, and synced to your online storage. (Aside: If Zotero could catch up on the interface and watched folder concept, they could actually rival Mendeley).
Here's my Mendeley profile: http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/matt-jans/. I started a couple of groups to share references with colleagues, but I have to admit that I don't use them actively. I've had mixed success bringing colleagues into Mendeley for various reasons.
If you have any favorite professional and research social media sites, please share! Also, point out the bad ones so I don't waste time signing up :) Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)