The Ethnographic Explorer: Help Pages

Contents > Sorting

Types of cases

 Cases are the entities that participants are asked to sort.
They will usually have one identifiable common characteristic, but vary in many others.
For example, they could be particular kinds of people, objects, events, organisations, ideas, or even sections of texts.

The bottom line is that the person or group being asked to do the sort should be expected to know something about most, if not all of those in the group that is being presented to them to sort.

Types of sorts

There are many different types of sorting exercises. See Harloff,  Harloff J and Coxon APM (2007) How To Sort; A short guide on sorting investigations.

Here we are focusing on one method, known as Hierarchical Card Sorting.
    
Guidance on sorting, for facilitators or self-guided participants
  1. Use a warm-up question.  Begin by asking the respondent to tell you about some of the differences between all the cases presented. The purpose of this initial question is simply to generate a shared awareness of the large number of differences that (inevitably) exist. If the respondent finds this difficult, randomly identify two cards at a time, and ask them to compare them, with a view to finding interesting differences.
  2. Ask the respondent to sort all the cards into two piles of any size (see these as the first two branches above the trunk of a tree), representing what they think is the most significant difference between all the cases represented on the cards. Emphasise that it is their opinion of “significant” which is important. If you want to direct their attention in a particular direction then use a prefix and suffix to the question, such as
    1. “In your roles as…..........what do you think is the most significant difference between…........?
    2. Or “Considering the objectives of this organisation….........what do you think is the most significant difference between…..........?
    3.  Emphasise that a distinction is significant if it makes a difference of one kind or another (in the past, present or future).
  3. Because respondents may casually offer a difference simply to oblige the interviewer it is important to check its significance by asking a follow up question: “What difference does this difference make ?” If one can’t be identified then suggest to the respondent that they think if there are other differences which might be more significant.
  4. Take one of the two piles at at time and repeat steps 2 and 3 above. Then repeat this process with second pile. There should now be four piles. Repeat the same process with these piles until there is only one card left in each pile.
  5. You can develop the tree structure in  various ways: (a) follow one pile and its sub-piles as far down as possible, or (b) explore all piles at one level, then do the same at the next level down.
  6.  In some cases there may be more than one example left in a pile but the respondent may not be able to identify an important difference between them. Don’t force them to do so, but simply note that no further difference could be identified.
Problems and limitations
  1. Some caution may be appropriate. Like all participatory methods it requires some trust and confidence in the relationship between yourself and the person whose views you are seeking. Secondly, there is no guarantee that the views that are expressed will be stable over time. Peoples views of the world change, and the expression of their views is often very context dependent.
  2. Some people react at some stage to the exercise by saying “There is no difference between these“. Here I have cautiously tried to give many examples of possible differences, while being careful not to lead in any particular direction. I have emphasised that differences can be found even between objects that look identical, the question is which of these is most important from their point of view. I also emphasise that we are looking for relative rather than absolute significance. But if the person is really struggling, especially after having already identified previous differences between the earlier bigger piles, do not push them.
  3. Another problem is almost the opposite in nature. People can approach the task in what appears to be an un-engaged manner, blithely tossing off distinctions which don’t seem too significant. When this happens I have tried asking “In what way is that significant, what difference does that make?, checking to see that the respondent can articulate the significance, and if not checking to see if they really understand the exercise.
  4. Another problem relates to respondents who are almost too helpful. As can be seen from the tables below it is common for some respondents to report more than one difference. When well organised I have dutifully noted these down and then asked the respondent, after reading them back, “and which of these……are the most significant ?” Failing to do this has meant I have been the one that ends up speculating on their relative importance to the respondent.
  5. Many respondents find it easier to identify differences, than it is to identify the differences these differences will make. Often both respondent and interviewer assume that this is self-evident and fail to document this part of the exercise. Yet these beliefs can contain important assumptions or hypotheses about the way things work, which can benefit by being openly described, scrutinised and tested.