04/16/2017
I can't believe that my BASIS Scottsdale career has come to a close. After a little bit of reflecting, I have come to realize that I am thrilled with all that I have accomplished, and I know that my time at BASIS has adequately prepared me to take Colorado School of Mines by storm this fall.
The AP Capstone program and Ms. Haag's guidance through the past couple years has truly been one of the most (if not the most) enriching pieces of my education. The course, having taken me through the research process five times, has made me a much stronger thinker, writer, and presenter. Not only have I further come to love questioning and finding answers, but I have learned how to approach each question with an open mind. Every time I chose a research topic and answered my question, it was an organic process -- entering the course, I thought that a research project would have clear direction from the beginning, but every question I answered didn't even come about until I conducted preliminary research and discovered a unique aspect of a problem I didn't even know was there. Take, for example, my AP Research topic. Originally, I was going to look at the ingredients of natural and unnatural makeup to determine why natural makeup was superior to unnatural makeup from a chemical perspective; however, during the initial research phase, I found that the social influences that had led me to believe natural makeup was superior were largely unwarranted, so, instead, I ended up pursuing a consumer study to determine which makeup was actually superior, natural or unnatural. I am beyond excited to apply this new open-minded approach to research during my time at Mines in order to answer big questions in engineering and hopefully solve some key issues.
The course has also made me feel so much more confident presenting my ideas in front of an audience. Before seminar, I would have never thought I could memorize a 15 minute presentation, let alone a 10 minute one, to where I could deliver a complex yet convincing argument without even glancing at bullet points on a slide. Especially during my final research presentation, I truly felt like a professional talking about the cosmetics industry. Undoubtedly, learning how to create effective slides and gaining the confidence to completely own the verbal aspect of the presentation will give me a huge advantage in my future education and career.
Lastly, Ms. Haag's unwavering efforts to transform each of us into the best, most capable individuals we can be have probably made the greatest impact. Her constant encouragement and belief that we can do better, her many hours spent carefully editing our work (especially last year -- I really don't have any clue how she got through last year!), her devotion to each of our projects like it was her own... honestly, there is no way I would be the person I am today without her. Her emotional investment in my education has been such a gift to me -- it has enriched my life more than I could ever adequately express.
Here's to the class of 2017 going off and achieving great things, both this coming fall in college and throughout our future careers. We did it! Now it's our time to shine in new places while accomplishing new feats. :)
(561)
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Practice Presentations: A Reflection
04/09/2017
After doing two practice presentations (one last Monday and one on Saturday), I am feeling pretty confident about my presentation and excited to share my findings with the BASIS community.
Last Monday, I went into my practice presentation uneasy about the slides actually explaining my research methods and results. My feelings were justified, as many of the guest teachers watching the practice presentation couldn't follow exactly what I did and how I quantified the findings from the blind consumption test and the exit survey. After discussing with Ms. Haag and the teachers, I created more slides, some with pretty heavy animations (one slide took about 25 minutes to make!), in order to better explain the process of my method, the design of my exit survey, and the conclusions I reached from all the data I collected.
On Saturday, Mr. Molk, who was completely lost watching my first presentation, said that he totally understood my methods and conclusions the second time. The other guest teacher, Dr. Helmers, although he didn't see my presentation the first time, said that he followed the whole thing and was really impressed. Ms. Haag also thought my slides had improved and commented that my verbal presentation was pretty strong (although I know that I can still improve that and there are some awkward spots, especially in the parts of the methods and results where I have added additional explanation). So, overall, I am feeling pretty good about the whole presentation.
What I have left to do is fix some slides that still have general pictures, lack of animation, or poor visual appeal (on Saturday, we all found that some slides would be more effective if they included bullet points explaining key points in conjunction with pictures). Also, I need to work on a couple transitions/explanations in my verbal script to ensure that the audience follows my thought process when I analyze my results and reach conclusions. As far as practicing, I will continue to go through it a few times a day, at least once with an audience and with either reviewing or practicing answering oral defense questions. I have my final practice presentation tomorrow, so I am sure I will find more places where I can improve my slides/explanation, and I will implement them into the rest of my practice before finishing AP Research this Friday at 8am! :D
We are almost there! Good luck to everyone with finishing and practicing their presentations!
(408)
After doing two practice presentations (one last Monday and one on Saturday), I am feeling pretty confident about my presentation and excited to share my findings with the BASIS community.
Last Monday, I went into my practice presentation uneasy about the slides actually explaining my research methods and results. My feelings were justified, as many of the guest teachers watching the practice presentation couldn't follow exactly what I did and how I quantified the findings from the blind consumption test and the exit survey. After discussing with Ms. Haag and the teachers, I created more slides, some with pretty heavy animations (one slide took about 25 minutes to make!), in order to better explain the process of my method, the design of my exit survey, and the conclusions I reached from all the data I collected.
On Saturday, Mr. Molk, who was completely lost watching my first presentation, said that he totally understood my methods and conclusions the second time. The other guest teacher, Dr. Helmers, although he didn't see my presentation the first time, said that he followed the whole thing and was really impressed. Ms. Haag also thought my slides had improved and commented that my verbal presentation was pretty strong (although I know that I can still improve that and there are some awkward spots, especially in the parts of the methods and results where I have added additional explanation). So, overall, I am feeling pretty good about the whole presentation.
What I have left to do is fix some slides that still have general pictures, lack of animation, or poor visual appeal (on Saturday, we all found that some slides would be more effective if they included bullet points explaining key points in conjunction with pictures). Also, I need to work on a couple transitions/explanations in my verbal script to ensure that the audience follows my thought process when I analyze my results and reach conclusions. As far as practicing, I will continue to go through it a few times a day, at least once with an audience and with either reviewing or practicing answering oral defense questions. I have my final practice presentation tomorrow, so I am sure I will find more places where I can improve my slides/explanation, and I will implement them into the rest of my practice before finishing AP Research this Friday at 8am! :D
We are almost there! Good luck to everyone with finishing and practicing their presentations!
(408)
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Crafting the Ideal Research Presentation
04/02/2017
After meeting with Ms. Haag last Monday and discussing how to improve my presentation, I am feeling a lot more confident about my understanding of what it takes to successfully convey all the information from a complex research project to an audience.
An AP Research presentation has a completely different purpose from a Seminar presentation. In Seminar, we were building an argument based off of general information from many other sources. Any explanation/justification of a method or how an author came to conclusions was brief -- we were mainly just stringing together the conclusions themselves in order to support a thesis statement. Research, on the other hand, is breaking down, explaining, and justifying the conclusion of ONE argument, our argument. It is a justification of our question (a brief explanation of the lit review, just enough information to show the significance and gap in the field), an in depth justification and explanation of our method, a detailed analysis of how the results from that method answer our question, and an insightful description of the future directions and implications that our research uncovers.
As such, the content of an ideal Research presentation should efficiently convey just enough information from the lit review to show the significance and gap in the field, and then it should transition into a detailed justification and explanation of the method and the results it uncovers, along with an analysis of the ultimate answer to the question and what it means for society.
While I think that a lot of us have a good understanding of what content is necessary to include in a script, a lot of us are still struggling with creating the optimal PowerPoint. In Seminar, we could get away with generic pictures since we were conveying a bunch of simple ideas. However, now, in Research, we are responsible for explaining complex and very specific research. Every picture, diagram, or bullet point needs to be tailored specifically to explaining OUR research. Otherwise, the presentation is completely useless in helping the audience understand what we are saying. For example, in my PowerPoint, for the slide accompanying my discussion of the participants, I had a general picture of a few girls testing makeup.This generic picture did not convey that I had 50 participants or that they were the clientele from a local makeup store, the main points that I am trying to make. Thus, I changed the slide to be a diagram of 50 female bathroom silhouettes (to represent the 50 female participants) and used a smart art shape to label them as a sample of the clientele from a local makeup store. Ultimately, if there is no clear answer to the question "How does this picture/bullet point/diagram/graph help the audience visually understand the point that I am verbally conveying?" then that element of the presentation needs to be altered so that it can achieve that purpose.
Improving my presentation has been a lot of swapping generic pictures for more specific diagrams, inserting actual charts/examples from my results section, and adding visual interest/drawing attention to key points through animations and introducing bullet points/visual elements one at a time (as opposed to having all the slide's content come up at once). I have also condensed my script by cutting even more technical/specific information out of the lit review and synthesizing the results and discussion sections more so that each conclusion leads directly into how it answers the question and its implications.
Going forward practicing my presentation, I plan on delivering it to my parents at least once per day while playing the PowerPoint on the TV beside me, and I will practice reciting the script with my slides up on my computer at least another two times per day. Every time, I will update the script and presentation if I discover a way to more naturally or effectively convey the information, and I will take advice from my parents and ensure that they understand all the points I am making. Also, I will give the oral defense questions to my parents and have them ask me a few at the end of each practice presentation so that I get used to answering questions at the end of a long presentation.
Overall, I am excited to present all the hard work I have done throughout the year and end high school by finishing a large project that I can be proud of! Good luck to everyone else on practicing and finishing their presentations. The finish line is truly in sight!
(752)
After meeting with Ms. Haag last Monday and discussing how to improve my presentation, I am feeling a lot more confident about my understanding of what it takes to successfully convey all the information from a complex research project to an audience.
An AP Research presentation has a completely different purpose from a Seminar presentation. In Seminar, we were building an argument based off of general information from many other sources. Any explanation/justification of a method or how an author came to conclusions was brief -- we were mainly just stringing together the conclusions themselves in order to support a thesis statement. Research, on the other hand, is breaking down, explaining, and justifying the conclusion of ONE argument, our argument. It is a justification of our question (a brief explanation of the lit review, just enough information to show the significance and gap in the field), an in depth justification and explanation of our method, a detailed analysis of how the results from that method answer our question, and an insightful description of the future directions and implications that our research uncovers.
As such, the content of an ideal Research presentation should efficiently convey just enough information from the lit review to show the significance and gap in the field, and then it should transition into a detailed justification and explanation of the method and the results it uncovers, along with an analysis of the ultimate answer to the question and what it means for society.
While I think that a lot of us have a good understanding of what content is necessary to include in a script, a lot of us are still struggling with creating the optimal PowerPoint. In Seminar, we could get away with generic pictures since we were conveying a bunch of simple ideas. However, now, in Research, we are responsible for explaining complex and very specific research. Every picture, diagram, or bullet point needs to be tailored specifically to explaining OUR research. Otherwise, the presentation is completely useless in helping the audience understand what we are saying. For example, in my PowerPoint, for the slide accompanying my discussion of the participants, I had a general picture of a few girls testing makeup.This generic picture did not convey that I had 50 participants or that they were the clientele from a local makeup store, the main points that I am trying to make. Thus, I changed the slide to be a diagram of 50 female bathroom silhouettes (to represent the 50 female participants) and used a smart art shape to label them as a sample of the clientele from a local makeup store. Ultimately, if there is no clear answer to the question "How does this picture/bullet point/diagram/graph help the audience visually understand the point that I am verbally conveying?" then that element of the presentation needs to be altered so that it can achieve that purpose.
Improving my presentation has been a lot of swapping generic pictures for more specific diagrams, inserting actual charts/examples from my results section, and adding visual interest/drawing attention to key points through animations and introducing bullet points/visual elements one at a time (as opposed to having all the slide's content come up at once). I have also condensed my script by cutting even more technical/specific information out of the lit review and synthesizing the results and discussion sections more so that each conclusion leads directly into how it answers the question and its implications.
Going forward practicing my presentation, I plan on delivering it to my parents at least once per day while playing the PowerPoint on the TV beside me, and I will practice reciting the script with my slides up on my computer at least another two times per day. Every time, I will update the script and presentation if I discover a way to more naturally or effectively convey the information, and I will take advice from my parents and ensure that they understand all the points I am making. Also, I will give the oral defense questions to my parents and have them ask me a few at the end of each practice presentation so that I get used to answering questions at the end of a long presentation.
Overall, I am excited to present all the hard work I have done throughout the year and end high school by finishing a large project that I can be proud of! Good luck to everyone else on practicing and finishing their presentations. The finish line is truly in sight!
(752)
Sunday, March 26, 2017
I Officially Feel Like I'm Drowning...But I'll Get Through This!
03/26/2017
Starting off with my current feels, I am officially 3 days into my 6-day work week (my last day off was Thursday, and my next day off is this Thursday), and, after filling in my calendar/agenda with my work schedule and my AP Research schedule for the next couple of weeks, I am feeling very overwhelmed! I know that April 14th marks the light at the end of the tunnel, but it is a very, very dark tunnel indeed.
I have finished the first draft of my presentation script and PowerPoint as of about 15 minutes ago. I am feeling pretty confident about the PowerPoint (I think I found some nice pictures and backgrounds and aligned it well with the information in the presentation...I know I might need to put a few more slides in once I practice more and realize how I can better visually convey the information). Regarding the script, I am pretty confident in all the information I included, and I was able to severely cut down the lit review. I have gone through a couple of the sections, and they seem to be in about the right time ranges too. Right now, though, the sentences are still wordy (like they were in the original paper); this week, as I practice, I plan on finding how I naturally say everything and editing the script as I go.
As far as the rubric goes, here is my understanding of each of the rows:
1: Explicitly state the research question, method, and conclusion and ensure that each are tied together/explained thoroughly.
2: All claims must be tied to evidence from the research, and these claims must then lead to implications and significance. Limitations of the evidence collected should also be addressed.
3: Answer these questions: "Why did you hold your initial hypothesis?" "How did your results align with your hypothesis? Why was this the case?"
4: The visual presentation should engagingly bring attention to the main points and aid one's argument by complimenting what the presenter is saying. It should look professional and well-thought-out. The presentation should be well-memorized and well-spoken (the audience should not only be able to hear/understand the speaker, but feel obligated to listen because the speaker seems passionate about his/her topic).
In terms of how I adapted the content of my paper for the presentation, I severely cut down on the lit review -- my explanation of theories behind consumer choice, different studies addressing the health concerns of unnatural makeup, and theories behind branding were either mostly or completely chopped out. I figured that, since the rubric focuses less on justifying the research and more on explaining the research, findings, and conclusions, a lot of the lit review could be cut (I just kept what was necessary to reach the gap and my question). I also ended up cutting a lot of specific details about the procedure from the methods and mainly went into detail on the blind consumption test and how it answered my question. The results and discussion stayed primarily intact, as a lot of the information was important for rubric rows 2 and 3, showing what the research found and how it interacted with previous research, as well as the implications, significance, and limitations of the findings.
(545)
Starting off with my current feels, I am officially 3 days into my 6-day work week (my last day off was Thursday, and my next day off is this Thursday), and, after filling in my calendar/agenda with my work schedule and my AP Research schedule for the next couple of weeks, I am feeling very overwhelmed! I know that April 14th marks the light at the end of the tunnel, but it is a very, very dark tunnel indeed.
I have finished the first draft of my presentation script and PowerPoint as of about 15 minutes ago. I am feeling pretty confident about the PowerPoint (I think I found some nice pictures and backgrounds and aligned it well with the information in the presentation...I know I might need to put a few more slides in once I practice more and realize how I can better visually convey the information). Regarding the script, I am pretty confident in all the information I included, and I was able to severely cut down the lit review. I have gone through a couple of the sections, and they seem to be in about the right time ranges too. Right now, though, the sentences are still wordy (like they were in the original paper); this week, as I practice, I plan on finding how I naturally say everything and editing the script as I go.
As far as the rubric goes, here is my understanding of each of the rows:
1: Explicitly state the research question, method, and conclusion and ensure that each are tied together/explained thoroughly.
2: All claims must be tied to evidence from the research, and these claims must then lead to implications and significance. Limitations of the evidence collected should also be addressed.
3: Answer these questions: "Why did you hold your initial hypothesis?" "How did your results align with your hypothesis? Why was this the case?"
4: The visual presentation should engagingly bring attention to the main points and aid one's argument by complimenting what the presenter is saying. It should look professional and well-thought-out. The presentation should be well-memorized and well-spoken (the audience should not only be able to hear/understand the speaker, but feel obligated to listen because the speaker seems passionate about his/her topic).
In terms of how I adapted the content of my paper for the presentation, I severely cut down on the lit review -- my explanation of theories behind consumer choice, different studies addressing the health concerns of unnatural makeup, and theories behind branding were either mostly or completely chopped out. I figured that, since the rubric focuses less on justifying the research and more on explaining the research, findings, and conclusions, a lot of the lit review could be cut (I just kept what was necessary to reach the gap and my question). I also ended up cutting a lot of specific details about the procedure from the methods and mainly went into detail on the blind consumption test and how it answered my question. The results and discussion stayed primarily intact, as a lot of the information was important for rubric rows 2 and 3, showing what the research found and how it interacted with previous research, as well as the implications, significance, and limitations of the findings.
(545)
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Less than a Month Until Presentations!!
03/19/2017
With April 14th right around the corner, I feel like I have so much work to do to prepare for submitting my final paper to the college board (Wow... I just realized that this will be the last piece of work to submit to the CB!). However, I am ready to put my game face on, hunker down, produce a killer paper/presentation, and end senior year with something significant before going to the college of my dreams (I have decided on Colorado School of Mines, for those who don't already know.)
Anyways, for this week's recap, I will begin with reflecting on the research paper commentary I so kindly received from Saara, Ved, and Rema. Overall, I still feel strongly about my lit review, as everyone seemed to be able to follow my argument easily. However, there were a few places that I received some helpful tips -- in terms of cutting words (although not a HUGE issue for me, considering I am not extremely far over the word count), Ved pointed out that I didn't need quite as much elaboration on each author's credibility. In some places, I could cut extraneous details without losing any of my own argument. In addition, when I transitioned from societal influences into branding, everyone recommended that I use a source within the transition, and I think that made the logical link a lot stronger. Lastly, I was able to clean up my significance a little bit with their advice (something I have struggled with throughout the process, so please keep that in mind as you are making comments on my paper).
Where I think the comments were the heaviest and most helpful was in the results and the discussion sections. In my results section, I think I did a good job coming to general conclusions and not saving the conclusions for the discussion section, but, in some places, I expanded upon those conclusions a little too much. I will cut words by minimizing some of those conclusions and saving the details for the discussion. Speaking of the discussion, from both Ms. Haag and my commenters, I feel like I got great feedback as to how to organize everything (save significance for the end, break up subheadings into different conclusions, etc.) and how to strengthen the connection between my findings and the lit review (unpack claims and conclusions a little more, find more sources). I have tried to expand upon the significance too, but, again, I would appreciate it if this week's commenters can look that over as well since I just wrote a lot of it from scratch this week and it hasn't been looked at by another pair of eyes.
In terms of how I feel about my paper scoring in the highest rubric categories, bear with me, but I am going to go through row by row:
With April 14th right around the corner, I feel like I have so much work to do to prepare for submitting my final paper to the college board (Wow... I just realized that this will be the last piece of work to submit to the CB!). However, I am ready to put my game face on, hunker down, produce a killer paper/presentation, and end senior year with something significant before going to the college of my dreams (I have decided on Colorado School of Mines, for those who don't already know.)
Anyways, for this week's recap, I will begin with reflecting on the research paper commentary I so kindly received from Saara, Ved, and Rema. Overall, I still feel strongly about my lit review, as everyone seemed to be able to follow my argument easily. However, there were a few places that I received some helpful tips -- in terms of cutting words (although not a HUGE issue for me, considering I am not extremely far over the word count), Ved pointed out that I didn't need quite as much elaboration on each author's credibility. In some places, I could cut extraneous details without losing any of my own argument. In addition, when I transitioned from societal influences into branding, everyone recommended that I use a source within the transition, and I think that made the logical link a lot stronger. Lastly, I was able to clean up my significance a little bit with their advice (something I have struggled with throughout the process, so please keep that in mind as you are making comments on my paper).
Where I think the comments were the heaviest and most helpful was in the results and the discussion sections. In my results section, I think I did a good job coming to general conclusions and not saving the conclusions for the discussion section, but, in some places, I expanded upon those conclusions a little too much. I will cut words by minimizing some of those conclusions and saving the details for the discussion. Speaking of the discussion, from both Ms. Haag and my commenters, I feel like I got great feedback as to how to organize everything (save significance for the end, break up subheadings into different conclusions, etc.) and how to strengthen the connection between my findings and the lit review (unpack claims and conclusions a little more, find more sources). I have tried to expand upon the significance too, but, again, I would appreciate it if this week's commenters can look that over as well since I just wrote a lot of it from scratch this week and it hasn't been looked at by another pair of eyes.
In terms of how I feel about my paper scoring in the highest rubric categories, bear with me, but I am going to go through row by row:
- Row 1 - Scope, Significance, Gap: I feel like I am strong in creating a refined scope and clearly using the lit review to demonstrate a gap in the field that I am filling. However, I think I can probably make my significance sections stronger.
- Row 2 - Academic Conversation: I think that the academic conversation and relation of each perspective to each other is strong in my lit review.
- Row 3 - Sources: I think I do a good job demonstrating the credibility of each source and the methods (as in, how each researcher reached his/her conclusions) in my paper. However, something I struggled with was finding academic sources for makeup, so some may not be as credible.
- Row 4 - Method: I think I sufficiently explain how my method allows me to answer my research question at the beginning of my methods section.
- Row 5 - Results/Discussion: I think I use my data well to reach conclusions and have a sufficient analysis of limitations and avenues for future research/questions my research brings up. However, again, I have struggled with significance/implications.
- Row 6 - Data: I have struggled finding a statistical test or way to prove that there is no clear "winner" or most superior makeup brand, as the rankings were all over the place and participants didn't seem to consistently favor a specific brand. If I could get tips on a test I could use or way to more academically use my data to prove this, then that would be great.
- Row 7 - Design Elements: I feel like my tables, subheadings, and graph are all clear, especially with explanations included in the body of the paper, but please ensure that you understand them and comment if anything is unclear!
- Row 8 - Citations: I kept with APA citation style, did not use any long quotes, and focused on my voice driving the conversation and using other sources, as opposed to letting those sources take over.
- Row 9 - Wording: I tried to explain everything in terms that a non-expert in the field could understand. Again, please comment if anything is unclear though.
And, lastly for this post -- how I feel about the presentation. I clearly remember the uncomfortable feeling of presenting in seminar, and the frustration of memorizing a 10 minute presentation (and this is almost twice as long!). I am also concerned about getting my whole paper's worth of information into 15 minutes. However, I know what I am talking about -- I have been working on this project for the entire year! And, I think once I get into it, I will be able to condense and summarize certain sections, especially from the lit review. Until I actually start formulating a script and practicing, I won't know exactly where I am at in terms of time, but I am confident I will be able to figure it out (I mean, I have to...)
Happy editing, everyone! We are almost there!! :)
(974)
Sunday, March 12, 2017
First Draft Done!
03/12/2017
I can't believe that every section of the paper has been written! 5000 (well... 5076, so I will have to edit down) words of a project that has been six and a half months in the making...wow.
After finishing my discussion (or at least my first go at it... it is probably the section of the paper I am least confident about at this point) and reading through the whole mammoth of a paper, I have to say that I am proud of all that I have accomplished in AP Research this year. However, I still know that I have a lot of work and editing left to do. Now, in terms of further dissecting my feelings:
What I am Confident About:
I have to say that, of all the sections of the paper, I am most confident about my lit review. I feel that I am strong in the way I incorporated various sources into an academic conversation and a logical argument. I like how I build the credibility of each of my authors and show HOW they came to their conclusions in order to distinguish what is known about the cosmetics market and also to find where gaps exist in the knowledge behind consumer decision making between natural and unnatural makeup. I think the organization creates a nice flow for the reader, and I feel strong in terms of my transitioning.
I also like the way that I transitioned from my lit review to my methods section and explained why a blind consumption test is best for my research (I worked on this a lot with Ms. Haag when editing the methods). I think that, throughout my methods, I thoroughly relate what I am doing back to how the information will ultimately be used to answer the question. Additionally, in the results section, I think I do a good job relating the data to the types of conclusions that my question sought to reach.
What I am Not So Confident About:
I feel like some aspects of my methods section are confusing, especially the parts explaining scales (e.g. the hedonic scale, how I added up scores on the blind consumption test and exit survey). I think this also hurts me in the results section when I harken back to these scores and plot them against the newly added information (yet another scale!) - the mismatch score.
The methods section is what I ultimately feel is the weakest. I tried to incorporate sources from my lit review and connect what I ultimately found with my results back to the academic conversation, but it feels choppy/clumsy. I also feel like I am struggling with the significance portion, and, right now, I have it before the limitations and avenues for future research, but I didn't know the most effective order to put those three parts in. Advice on how I could better connect the discussion section back to the lit review and draw more significance and implications from my conclusions would be very much appreciated.
(504)
I can't believe that every section of the paper has been written! 5000 (well... 5076, so I will have to edit down) words of a project that has been six and a half months in the making...wow.
After finishing my discussion (or at least my first go at it... it is probably the section of the paper I am least confident about at this point) and reading through the whole mammoth of a paper, I have to say that I am proud of all that I have accomplished in AP Research this year. However, I still know that I have a lot of work and editing left to do. Now, in terms of further dissecting my feelings:
What I am Confident About:
I have to say that, of all the sections of the paper, I am most confident about my lit review. I feel that I am strong in the way I incorporated various sources into an academic conversation and a logical argument. I like how I build the credibility of each of my authors and show HOW they came to their conclusions in order to distinguish what is known about the cosmetics market and also to find where gaps exist in the knowledge behind consumer decision making between natural and unnatural makeup. I think the organization creates a nice flow for the reader, and I feel strong in terms of my transitioning.
I also like the way that I transitioned from my lit review to my methods section and explained why a blind consumption test is best for my research (I worked on this a lot with Ms. Haag when editing the methods). I think that, throughout my methods, I thoroughly relate what I am doing back to how the information will ultimately be used to answer the question. Additionally, in the results section, I think I do a good job relating the data to the types of conclusions that my question sought to reach.
What I am Not So Confident About:
I feel like some aspects of my methods section are confusing, especially the parts explaining scales (e.g. the hedonic scale, how I added up scores on the blind consumption test and exit survey). I think this also hurts me in the results section when I harken back to these scores and plot them against the newly added information (yet another scale!) - the mismatch score.
The methods section is what I ultimately feel is the weakest. I tried to incorporate sources from my lit review and connect what I ultimately found with my results back to the academic conversation, but it feels choppy/clumsy. I also feel like I am struggling with the significance portion, and, right now, I have it before the limitations and avenues for future research, but I didn't know the most effective order to put those three parts in. Advice on how I could better connect the discussion section back to the lit review and draw more significance and implications from my conclusions would be very much appreciated.
(504)
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Discussing the Discussion
03/05/2017
Hello again! It's been a wonderful week of exciting decision making. After discussing with my parents, I can officially say that I will be attending Colorado School of Mines in the absolutely lovely town of Golden, Colorado this fall. I could not be happier with the way things turned out! I am going to be studying engineering alongside intelligent peers who are also passionate about STEM and using it to improve the global community, and I get to do it while living in my favorite state. :)
Anyways, back down to business. This week I finished editing my results section, and I have begun the process of writing my discussion section. Below are the 3 sources I used to learn more about how the discussion section looks for other researchers who conducted blind consumption studies.
Citations:
Association Test in Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior.” Journal Of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 14(4), 405-415.
Common Features of the Discussion Sections - Relating them to my Research:
All the discussion sections seem to serve one primary purpose - to explain potential reasons for why participant self-identified preferences either matched or did not match their blind consumption test preferences. For example, Bakke and Vickers found that more consumers who stated that they preferred refined bread often whole wheat bread products higher than or similarly to refined breads in the blind consumption test, and they reasoned that this misalignment was likely due to a common social stigma against the taste of whole wheat bread. Similarly, Maison et al., who found that consumers with strong preferences for either Coke or Pepsi were able to distinguish between the two beverages under blind consumption conditions much more often than consumers with a weak preference for either beverage, reasoned that those who indicated a strong preference were more likely to have sensory preferences, as opposed to merely emotional ones associated with the brands.
For my discussion, I will be articulating the potential alternative emotional responses to branding that account for for the large amount of misalignment between participant self-identified and blind consumption preferences, as my results showed no correlation between emotional connections to the natural product movement and the amount of misalignment between self-identified and blind consumption preferences. To do this, I will bring in some outside sources discussing other emotional factors associated with branding (i.e. emotions associated with high-end/low-end brands, ethical production measures taken by different companies, etc.) I will also discuss the reasoning behind consumers with exceptionally strong emotional connections to the natural product movement experiencing alignment between their self-identified and blind consumption preferences. Here, I will draw in Maison et al.'s findings and connect a consumer's strong preference with sensory distinctions.
(614)
Hello again! It's been a wonderful week of exciting decision making. After discussing with my parents, I can officially say that I will be attending Colorado School of Mines in the absolutely lovely town of Golden, Colorado this fall. I could not be happier with the way things turned out! I am going to be studying engineering alongside intelligent peers who are also passionate about STEM and using it to improve the global community, and I get to do it while living in my favorite state. :)
Anyways, back down to business. This week I finished editing my results section, and I have begun the process of writing my discussion section. Below are the 3 sources I used to learn more about how the discussion section looks for other researchers who conducted blind consumption studies.
Citations:
1. Bakke, A., & Vickers, Z. (2007). “Consumer Liking of Refined and Whole Wheat Breads.” Journal Of Food Science, 72(7), S473-S480. (Bakke and Vickers conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether consumers preferred refined or wheat breads and whether these preferences aligned with their self identified preference between the two types of bread.)2. di Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Torrieri, E., & Masi, P. (2007). “Consumer Acceptability of Vegetable Soups.” Journal Of Sensory Studies, 22(1), 81-98. (di Monaco et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether information regarding the ingredients, packaging, or the farming system involved in soup production affected consumer soup preference)3. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. H. (2004). “Predictive Validity of the Implicit
(Maison et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether soft drink consumers could determine the difference between Coke and Pepsi and whether their ability to determine this difference was related to the strength of their preference for one beverage over the other).
(Maison et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether soft drink consumers could determine the difference between Coke and Pepsi and whether their ability to determine this difference was related to the strength of their preference for one beverage over the other).
Association Test in Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior.” Journal Of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 14(4), 405-415.
Common Features of the Discussion Sections - Relating them to my Research:
All the discussion sections seem to serve one primary purpose - to explain potential reasons for why participant self-identified preferences either matched or did not match their blind consumption test preferences. For example, Bakke and Vickers found that more consumers who stated that they preferred refined bread often whole wheat bread products higher than or similarly to refined breads in the blind consumption test, and they reasoned that this misalignment was likely due to a common social stigma against the taste of whole wheat bread. Similarly, Maison et al., who found that consumers with strong preferences for either Coke or Pepsi were able to distinguish between the two beverages under blind consumption conditions much more often than consumers with a weak preference for either beverage, reasoned that those who indicated a strong preference were more likely to have sensory preferences, as opposed to merely emotional ones associated with the brands.
For my discussion, I will be articulating the potential alternative emotional responses to branding that account for for the large amount of misalignment between participant self-identified and blind consumption preferences, as my results showed no correlation between emotional connections to the natural product movement and the amount of misalignment between self-identified and blind consumption preferences. To do this, I will bring in some outside sources discussing other emotional factors associated with branding (i.e. emotions associated with high-end/low-end brands, ethical production measures taken by different companies, etc.) I will also discuss the reasoning behind consumers with exceptionally strong emotional connections to the natural product movement experiencing alignment between their self-identified and blind consumption preferences. Here, I will draw in Maison et al.'s findings and connect a consumer's strong preference with sensory distinctions.
(614)
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Reading the Results
02/25/2017
Hello from Golden, Colorado! This past week, I have absolutely been loving my visit at Colorado School of Mines, and I'm thinking more and more that this is where I am going to end up in the coming fall. :)
But, until graduation, it's time to buckle down and finish this research paper! After analyzing 3 different blind consumption studies that I previously included in my methods assignment (cited below), I was able to draw a lot of connections between what I have written so far (I am a little ahead of schedule - I already had the first draft of my results section written at the end of last week) and what other researchers have written in my field.
Citations:
1. Bakke, A., & Vickers, Z. (2007). “Consumer Liking of Refined and Whole Wheat Breads.”
Journal Of Food Science, 72(7), S473-S480.
(Bakke and Vickers conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether consumers preferred refined or wheat breads and whether these preferences aligned with their self identified preference between the two types of bread.)
2. di Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Torrieri, E., & Masi, P. (2007). “Consumer Acceptability of
Vegetable Soups.” Journal Of Sensory Studies, 22(1), 81-98.
Hello from Golden, Colorado! This past week, I have absolutely been loving my visit at Colorado School of Mines, and I'm thinking more and more that this is where I am going to end up in the coming fall. :)
But, until graduation, it's time to buckle down and finish this research paper! After analyzing 3 different blind consumption studies that I previously included in my methods assignment (cited below), I was able to draw a lot of connections between what I have written so far (I am a little ahead of schedule - I already had the first draft of my results section written at the end of last week) and what other researchers have written in my field.
Citations:
1. Bakke, A., & Vickers, Z. (2007). “Consumer Liking of Refined and Whole Wheat Breads.”
Journal Of Food Science, 72(7), S473-S480.
(Bakke and Vickers conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether consumers preferred refined or wheat breads and whether these preferences aligned with their self identified preference between the two types of bread.)
2. di Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Torrieri, E., & Masi, P. (2007). “Consumer Acceptability of
Vegetable Soups.” Journal Of Sensory Studies, 22(1), 81-98.
(di Monaco et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether information regarding the ingredients, packaging, or the farming system involved in soup production affected consumer soup preference)
3. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. H. (2004). “Predictive Validity of the Implicit
Association Test in Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior.” Journal Of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 14(4), 405-415.
(Maison et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether soft drink consumers could determine the difference between Coke and Pepsi and whether their ability to determine this difference was related to the strength of their preference for one beverage over the other).
Two Main Features of All Three Sections - Relating them to my Research:
1. All the sources begin their results sections by identifying or measuring the degree of difference between the blind consumption test product preferences and the participant self-identified product preferences. Maison et al. especially paralleled my research because there were two variables; instead of just determining whether or not consumers COULD tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, the researchers aimed to connect this ability to preference strength between the beverages. Thus, in their results section, not only did they measure the degree of difference between blind consumption and self-identified preferences, but they plotted this against the strength of consumer preference for one beverage over the other. Similarly, I not only listed the differences between participant blind consumption and self-identified lip gloss preference, but plotted this against the degree to which the participant had been influenced by the natural product movement.
2. Then, the researchers draw conclusions based off of the results. For example, di Monaco et al. was able to determine that information regarding the ingredients within a soup affected consumer preference because consumers ranked organic soups higher than inorganic soups in their self-identified preferences than under blind consumption conditions. Also, Maison et al. concluded that, the stronger a participant's preference for one soft drink over the other, the more likely the participant was able to correctly identify Coke and Pepsi under blind consumption conditions (the plot created in the first part of the results section showed that participants were able to distinguish correctly between the beverages more often if their strength of preference was higher). Similarly, I made conclusions from my plot. Participants, no matter how influenced they were by the natural product movement, were likely to have self-identified brand preferences that were significantly misaligned with their blind consumption preferences, thus showing that makeup consumers' decisions are significantly swayed by branding, but not by whether the brand is natural or unnatural.
(631)
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Analyzing the Results
02/19/2017
Hello everyone! (In case you are unfamiliar with my research, my abstract is at the top of the page in white.)
Another week has flown by, and, during that time, I have been occupied with finishing my results section and outlining my discussion section. Since I am a little bit ahead in the game, having finished data collection before last week's blog post, I will backtrack and talk about how I analyzed my data.
After collecting 50 participants for my lip gloss blind consumption test and exit survey, I calculated a mismatch score for each participant (how different their preferences were between the blind consumption test and their self-identified preferences in the exit survey). I plotted this against how influenced they were by the natural product movement (a score calculated from how participants answered multiple choice questions about their consumption habits in the exit survey). If my hypothesis that consumers highly influenced by the natural makeup movement are more likely to choose products based off of emotional perceptions between the brands as opposed to sensory distinctions between the products, then participants highly influenced by the natural product movement (scores closer to 20) would have higher mismatch scores than participants less influenced by the natural product movement.
However, after plotting the graph (see below) and seeing the lack of trend (I had an R-squared value of 0.01639, very far from 1, which would indicate a linear trend), I learned that all participants tended to have relatively high mismatch scores (4-8), regardless of whether or not they were influenced by the natural product movement. Thus, I was able to conclude that many makeup consumers make decisions based on emotional perceptions of brands and not actual sensed quality differences.
However, one interesting thing that I noticed was that the few participants with very high natural product movement influence scores had low mismatch scores (0-2), while those highly uninfluenced by the natural product movement (negative values) tended to have high mismatch scores. The conclusion I drew from this was that consumers very staunchly for natural products may actually prefer the sensory feel of them and be able to differentiate natural makeup from unnatural makeup, even under blind consumption conditions.
I also decided to look at the overall favorite makeup brand, the one that scored the highest in the blind consumption test, in order to see if consumers tended to favor natural products over the unnatural ones, which would indicate a higher quality in natural makeup. Surprisingly, the unnatural drugstore brand L'oreal won out, with bareMinerals (natural high-end) coming in second, Burt's Bees in third (natural drugstore), and MAC last (unnatural high-end). Therefore, since L'oreal won, it cannot be concluded that natural makeup is inherently preferred among makeup consumers for its sensory qualities.
As for my game plan for the rest of the week, I am meeting with Ms. Haag Tuesday morning to discuss the outline for my discussion, and Tuesday through Thursday afternoon I will try to bust out a first draft. Thursday afternoon through Sunday, I am going to Golden, Colorado to visit Colorado School of Mines, participate in prospective student events, and interview for a scholarship (fingers crossed)! When I have downtime, I will try to edit the discussion and the full paper.
Hello everyone! (In case you are unfamiliar with my research, my abstract is at the top of the page in white.)
Another week has flown by, and, during that time, I have been occupied with finishing my results section and outlining my discussion section. Since I am a little bit ahead in the game, having finished data collection before last week's blog post, I will backtrack and talk about how I analyzed my data.
After collecting 50 participants for my lip gloss blind consumption test and exit survey, I calculated a mismatch score for each participant (how different their preferences were between the blind consumption test and their self-identified preferences in the exit survey). I plotted this against how influenced they were by the natural product movement (a score calculated from how participants answered multiple choice questions about their consumption habits in the exit survey). If my hypothesis that consumers highly influenced by the natural makeup movement are more likely to choose products based off of emotional perceptions between the brands as opposed to sensory distinctions between the products, then participants highly influenced by the natural product movement (scores closer to 20) would have higher mismatch scores than participants less influenced by the natural product movement.
However, after plotting the graph (see below) and seeing the lack of trend (I had an R-squared value of 0.01639, very far from 1, which would indicate a linear trend), I learned that all participants tended to have relatively high mismatch scores (4-8), regardless of whether or not they were influenced by the natural product movement. Thus, I was able to conclude that many makeup consumers make decisions based on emotional perceptions of brands and not actual sensed quality differences.
However, one interesting thing that I noticed was that the few participants with very high natural product movement influence scores had low mismatch scores (0-2), while those highly uninfluenced by the natural product movement (negative values) tended to have high mismatch scores. The conclusion I drew from this was that consumers very staunchly for natural products may actually prefer the sensory feel of them and be able to differentiate natural makeup from unnatural makeup, even under blind consumption conditions.
I also decided to look at the overall favorite makeup brand, the one that scored the highest in the blind consumption test, in order to see if consumers tended to favor natural products over the unnatural ones, which would indicate a higher quality in natural makeup. Surprisingly, the unnatural drugstore brand L'oreal won out, with bareMinerals (natural high-end) coming in second, Burt's Bees in third (natural drugstore), and MAC last (unnatural high-end). Therefore, since L'oreal won, it cannot be concluded that natural makeup is inherently preferred among makeup consumers for its sensory qualities.
As for my game plan for the rest of the week, I am meeting with Ms. Haag Tuesday morning to discuss the outline for my discussion, and Tuesday through Thursday afternoon I will try to bust out a first draft. Thursday afternoon through Sunday, I am going to Golden, Colorado to visit Colorado School of Mines, participate in prospective student events, and interview for a scholarship (fingers crossed)! When I have downtime, I will try to edit the discussion and the full paper.
Until next time, have a great week and happy analyzing your results!
(544)
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Research Down! Now Let's Finish This Paper...
02/11/17
Thursday, February 9th, I officially collected all 50 participants I needed for my blind consumption test and entered in the results into my Google Sheet - woohoo! Other than that, I have been working on improving and seriously cutting down on my lit review and methods (after improvements, those two sections were up to around 3850 words 0.0 - but I have cut down to around 3400 and foresee myself getting a few hundred more out by tomorrow). I also wrote my abstract, which I have put at the top of my blog (the white paragraph) to help people new to my research understand what I was aiming to find and the results of my research.
Speaking of the results, let's look at what I ultimately found...
After I finished plotting each participant's natural product movement influence score with her mismatch score (measuring how different her blind consumption lip gloss brand preferences were from her self-identified brand preferences), I used excel to find the equation of the line of best fit and the R-squared value for the linear regression. The R-squared value turned out to be 0.01639, indicating that there is not even close to a linear relationship between participants' natural product movement influence and mismatch scores. The lack of relationship is also supported by the seemingly nonexistent trend visually represented by the scatter. Thus, I concluded that the natural product movement is by no means a sole or primary influence in forming consumer opinions and influencing consumer decision making in the makeup market, as participants more often than not had high mismatch scores (6 or 8) regardless of their natural product movement influence scores. Therefore, as indicated by the high mismatch scores across the board, the results suggest that makeup consumers make decisions predominantly based on their emotional perceptions of certain brands, as opposed to actual sensed quality differences between makeup products, but these emotional perceptions are by no means solely related to the natural product movement and are likely due to many other factors.
Thursday, February 9th, I officially collected all 50 participants I needed for my blind consumption test and entered in the results into my Google Sheet - woohoo! Other than that, I have been working on improving and seriously cutting down on my lit review and methods (after improvements, those two sections were up to around 3850 words 0.0 - but I have cut down to around 3400 and foresee myself getting a few hundred more out by tomorrow). I also wrote my abstract, which I have put at the top of my blog (the white paragraph) to help people new to my research understand what I was aiming to find and the results of my research.
Speaking of the results, let's look at what I ultimately found...
After I finished plotting each participant's natural product movement influence score with her mismatch score (measuring how different her blind consumption lip gloss brand preferences were from her self-identified brand preferences), I used excel to find the equation of the line of best fit and the R-squared value for the linear regression. The R-squared value turned out to be 0.01639, indicating that there is not even close to a linear relationship between participants' natural product movement influence and mismatch scores. The lack of relationship is also supported by the seemingly nonexistent trend visually represented by the scatter. Thus, I concluded that the natural product movement is by no means a sole or primary influence in forming consumer opinions and influencing consumer decision making in the makeup market, as participants more often than not had high mismatch scores (6 or 8) regardless of their natural product movement influence scores. Therefore, as indicated by the high mismatch scores across the board, the results suggest that makeup consumers make decisions predominantly based on their emotional perceptions of certain brands, as opposed to actual sensed quality differences between makeup products, but these emotional perceptions are by no means solely related to the natural product movement and are likely due to many other factors.
You are probably wondering which of the 4 lip gloss brands actually scored the highest or was the favorite among participants in the blind consumption test. Honestly, the rankings were all over the place and there was no one brand that clearly seemed to be ranked higher than the others. In order to analyze the rankings as a whole, I went through each participant's rankings in the blind consumption test for each brand. If the brand was ranked the participant's favorite, I gave the brand a +3; if the brand was the second favorite, a +2; and if the third favorite, a +1). After going through all the participants and brands, (*key drumroll*), I found that L'oreal (the UNNATURAL DRUGSTORE brand) won out with a score of 105, with bareMinerals (the natural high-end brand) in second place at 90, Burt's Bees (the natural drugstore brand) in third at 70, and MAC (the high-end unnatural brand) finishing last with a score of 64. Thus, it also cannot be concluded that natural makeup is inherently higher quality than unnatural makeup, as L'oreal was the overall favorite. Also interesting, high end makeup is not inherently higher quality than drugstore makeup, as L'oreal won over bareMinerals and MAC came in last place.
Going forward this week, I am actually going to start writing my results section, which will include all of the above findings and also specifically analyze the participants with the very high and very low natural product influence scores. Interestingly enough, some of the participants with the highest natural product influence scores of 15-20 actually said that they preferred to purchase the unnatural makeup brands over the natural ones in their self-identified brand preferences. Thus, while participants may claim that they subscribe the natural product movement, they may not actually associate each brand with whether or not it uses natural or unnatural ingredients. I will delve more into this next week once I have looked more closely at a few specific examples.
Anyways, thanks for reading through my blog this week! Let me know if you have any questions or advice. I hope you are all also enjoying your own research and time out of school. :)
(701)
Sunday, February 5, 2017
A Taste of Freedom
02/05/2017
We are officially out of school (unbelievable how time flies, right?)! The past few days, I have been enjoying getting more people to participate in my lip gloss blind consumption test and training for my new job at Starbucks. In case you haven't been following my research until this point, welcome to my blog! The goal of my research is to figure out more about consumer decisions between natural and unnatural makeup brands, specifically whether consumers choose between products primarily based off of differences they actually feel while consuming them or based off of societal influences pushing them to consume a certain type of product (e.g. health movements pushing consumers to purchase products made with all natural ingredients, as opposed to products containing unnatural ingredients).
Yesterday, I went to Skin Apeel Beauty Bar (a makeup store on Avenue of the Fountains in Fountain Hills) again and asked clients and customers if they wanted to participate in my lip gloss blind consumption test as they came through the store. I ended up getting 13 people, and now I have 34 of the 50 participants I need. I am going back again this upcoming Thursday, and there should be a lot of traffic going through the store that day, so I am confident that I will have all (or nearly all) my participants tested by the end of the week.
I have also inputted all my results into a Google Sheet I created. For each participant (assigned a number), it includes her blind consumption scores for each product, the 4 products listed from most favorite to least favorite (based on these blind consumption test scores), the 4 products listed from most favorite to least favorite (based on the exit survey, which asked participants to order the 4 lip gloss brands from "most favorite brand" to "least favorite brand"), a mismatch score (which indicates how "off" or different the blind consumption order of favorites differs from favorite brands list), and a natural product movement influence score (based off of the multiple choice questions in the exit survey meant to gauge how strongly the participant feels about consuming natural cosmetic products over products that contain unnatural ingredients).
Thus far, I am finding that almost all participants have similar mismatch scores regardless of how influenced they are by the natural product movement. I created a graph in excel plotting each participant's mismatch score (a number 0-8, with 8 indicating the most amount of difference between the blind consumption test and the participant's indicated preferences) with their natural product movement influence score (a number -20 to 20, with -20 being highly uninfluenced and 20 being highly influenced). My hypothesis was that participants highly influenced by the natural product movement would have more mismatches than those who had little influence. If this were correct, the graph would look more linear with a positive slope, indicating that the number of mismatches increased as the influence by the natural product movement increased. However, so far, it seems that the number of mismatches is relatively unrelated to natural product movement influence, as shown by the lack of trend in the scatter.
So, there you have my progress so far. Moving on to how I feel about being off on my own now with less guidance from Ms. Haag -- it would be a lie to say that I am completely confident in how I am analyzing my results and how I will write my results section. I am hoping that is one thing we can start to discuss in our meeting tomorrow so that I can have more direction on what will be most useful to include. Right now, the pitfalls I am most concerned with is unclearly presenting my data (for example, I have an uneasy feeling about that graph being hard to follow/interpret) and including too much/too little information for the sake of answering my question (e.g. should I add up/average all the participant blind consumption rankings for each lip gloss and include which one is most liked to determine which product was actually deemed the "highest quality"?).
(680)
We are officially out of school (unbelievable how time flies, right?)! The past few days, I have been enjoying getting more people to participate in my lip gloss blind consumption test and training for my new job at Starbucks. In case you haven't been following my research until this point, welcome to my blog! The goal of my research is to figure out more about consumer decisions between natural and unnatural makeup brands, specifically whether consumers choose between products primarily based off of differences they actually feel while consuming them or based off of societal influences pushing them to consume a certain type of product (e.g. health movements pushing consumers to purchase products made with all natural ingredients, as opposed to products containing unnatural ingredients).
Yesterday, I went to Skin Apeel Beauty Bar (a makeup store on Avenue of the Fountains in Fountain Hills) again and asked clients and customers if they wanted to participate in my lip gloss blind consumption test as they came through the store. I ended up getting 13 people, and now I have 34 of the 50 participants I need. I am going back again this upcoming Thursday, and there should be a lot of traffic going through the store that day, so I am confident that I will have all (or nearly all) my participants tested by the end of the week.
I have also inputted all my results into a Google Sheet I created. For each participant (assigned a number), it includes her blind consumption scores for each product, the 4 products listed from most favorite to least favorite (based on these blind consumption test scores), the 4 products listed from most favorite to least favorite (based on the exit survey, which asked participants to order the 4 lip gloss brands from "most favorite brand" to "least favorite brand"), a mismatch score (which indicates how "off" or different the blind consumption order of favorites differs from favorite brands list), and a natural product movement influence score (based off of the multiple choice questions in the exit survey meant to gauge how strongly the participant feels about consuming natural cosmetic products over products that contain unnatural ingredients).
Thus far, I am finding that almost all participants have similar mismatch scores regardless of how influenced they are by the natural product movement. I created a graph in excel plotting each participant's mismatch score (a number 0-8, with 8 indicating the most amount of difference between the blind consumption test and the participant's indicated preferences) with their natural product movement influence score (a number -20 to 20, with -20 being highly uninfluenced and 20 being highly influenced). My hypothesis was that participants highly influenced by the natural product movement would have more mismatches than those who had little influence. If this were correct, the graph would look more linear with a positive slope, indicating that the number of mismatches increased as the influence by the natural product movement increased. However, so far, it seems that the number of mismatches is relatively unrelated to natural product movement influence, as shown by the lack of trend in the scatter.
So, there you have my progress so far. Moving on to how I feel about being off on my own now with less guidance from Ms. Haag -- it would be a lie to say that I am completely confident in how I am analyzing my results and how I will write my results section. I am hoping that is one thing we can start to discuss in our meeting tomorrow so that I can have more direction on what will be most useful to include. Right now, the pitfalls I am most concerned with is unclearly presenting my data (for example, I have an uneasy feeling about that graph being hard to follow/interpret) and including too much/too little information for the sake of answering my question (e.g. should I add up/average all the participant blind consumption rankings for each lip gloss and include which one is most liked to determine which product was actually deemed the "highest quality"?).
(680)
Friday, January 27, 2017
Leaving the Nest (Part 1)
01/27/2017
With less than one week of school left, it is just starting to set in that I won't be attending school on a regular basis for 6-7 months. While I am definitely excited to leave, start my new Starbucks job, and preparing for college (big decisions ahead in these next few months!), I am also a little nervous about completing the rest of my research and writing the results and discussion sections with the only support being a weekly meeting with Ms. Haag.
In terms of the progress I have made in the past week, I have created a much nicer flow from my lit review to my methods section and cut down a lot of words. I have also integrated a lot more justifications supporting my blind consumption test scale and exit survey questions (vignette - thank you, Kristiana, for sharing your sources - and Likert scale-style). Overall, I am feeling a lot more confident about the lit review and methods section, and I think a little bit of editing, adding, and reorganizing truly went a long way.
I have scheduled another date - Saturday, February 4th from 10-2pm - for going in to Skin Apeel Beauty Bar and testing participants. While this is the only OFFICIAL date I have locked down, I also plan on going into Skin Apeel the following week during the times when I am not working and trying to get as many walk-ins as possible to participate in the test.
Additionally, in terms of statistically analyzing data, I met with Mr. Peacher and we came up with some good ideas. Before, I had two main problems - determining the "number of mismatches" (how "off" participant product rankings were between their blind consumption test and the exit survey) and determining how related these misconceptions were to the natural product movement's influence on participants.
Before, I was determining the number of mismatches simply by looking at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place slots and counting how many were "off" between the two ranking lists. Thus, it was only a number 0-4, and it did not take into account how far each product moved on the ranking list (for example, if someone ranked the 1st place product in her blind consumption test 2nd on the exit survey, it would be less of a misconception than if she had ranked it 4th on her exit survey, and my previous way of counting mismatches didn't take this into account). Mr. Peacher suggested that I add how far off the rankings were from each other to get the "mismatching" number. For example, if a participant's rankings for the blind consumption test were product 1, product 2, product 3, product 4, and for the exit survey was product 4, product 2, product 1, product 3, their mismatching score would be 3 (for the number of places product 4 moved) + 2 (number of places product 1 moved) + 1 (number of places product 3 moved) = 6.
To determine how correlated these mismatching values are with the natural product influence on participants, I will create a linear regression between participants' mismatching scores and the added number (-20 to 20) from the exit survey questions. Thus, I will be able to determine how related the participant product misconceptions were to their preference (or lack thereof) for natural products. If there is a strong correlation, then it is likely the natural product movement is a major reason consumers have misconceptions about their favorite makeup brands. However, if there is a weak correlation, then misconceptions are likely due to other/additional causes.
(598)
With less than one week of school left, it is just starting to set in that I won't be attending school on a regular basis for 6-7 months. While I am definitely excited to leave, start my new Starbucks job, and preparing for college (big decisions ahead in these next few months!), I am also a little nervous about completing the rest of my research and writing the results and discussion sections with the only support being a weekly meeting with Ms. Haag.
In terms of the progress I have made in the past week, I have created a much nicer flow from my lit review to my methods section and cut down a lot of words. I have also integrated a lot more justifications supporting my blind consumption test scale and exit survey questions (vignette - thank you, Kristiana, for sharing your sources - and Likert scale-style). Overall, I am feeling a lot more confident about the lit review and methods section, and I think a little bit of editing, adding, and reorganizing truly went a long way.
I have scheduled another date - Saturday, February 4th from 10-2pm - for going in to Skin Apeel Beauty Bar and testing participants. While this is the only OFFICIAL date I have locked down, I also plan on going into Skin Apeel the following week during the times when I am not working and trying to get as many walk-ins as possible to participate in the test.
Additionally, in terms of statistically analyzing data, I met with Mr. Peacher and we came up with some good ideas. Before, I had two main problems - determining the "number of mismatches" (how "off" participant product rankings were between their blind consumption test and the exit survey) and determining how related these misconceptions were to the natural product movement's influence on participants.
Before, I was determining the number of mismatches simply by looking at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place slots and counting how many were "off" between the two ranking lists. Thus, it was only a number 0-4, and it did not take into account how far each product moved on the ranking list (for example, if someone ranked the 1st place product in her blind consumption test 2nd on the exit survey, it would be less of a misconception than if she had ranked it 4th on her exit survey, and my previous way of counting mismatches didn't take this into account). Mr. Peacher suggested that I add how far off the rankings were from each other to get the "mismatching" number. For example, if a participant's rankings for the blind consumption test were product 1, product 2, product 3, product 4, and for the exit survey was product 4, product 2, product 1, product 3, their mismatching score would be 3 (for the number of places product 4 moved) + 2 (number of places product 1 moved) + 1 (number of places product 3 moved) = 6.
To determine how correlated these mismatching values are with the natural product influence on participants, I will create a linear regression between participants' mismatching scores and the added number (-20 to 20) from the exit survey questions. Thus, I will be able to determine how related the participant product misconceptions were to their preference (or lack thereof) for natural products. If there is a strong correlation, then it is likely the natural product movement is a major reason consumers have misconceptions about their favorite makeup brands. However, if there is a weak correlation, then misconceptions are likely due to other/additional causes.
(598)
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Implementing and Editing My Method
01/22/16
Last Saturday, I conducted my first round of blind consumption testing and successfully finished 21 participants (so almost half, considering that my final goal is 50) within a few hours, so I am feeling pretty good about my progress so far. In terms of what I learned, it was really only feasible to guide one or two participants through the test at a time, given the tedious process of making sure they are testing the right lip gloss at the right time (each participant has a specific random order they need to test them in for validity reasons) and filling out the section of their blind consumption ranking form that corresponds to the product they are currently sampling. Otherwise, the process went smoothly and was a lot more efficient than I originally thought (each participant only took 5-10 minutes to complete both the test and the exit survey).
As for the results I am finding, 6/21 participants clearly favored unnatural makeup in the blind consumption even though they claimed to prefer natural brands in the exit survey and their answers to the multiple choice questions demonstrated that they were influenced by the natural product movement. 10/21 participants (not including those 6) had rankings that did not match between the blind consumption test and the exit survey, but they were simply personal misconceptions about their own taste and were not necessarily related to a perceived preference for natural makeup over unnatural makeup. The final 5 participants had similar or identical rankings in their blind consumption test and exit survey, some preferring natural products in both, some preferring unnatural products in both, and some preferring drugstore/high end products in both. Overall, participants did not lean toward any one of the 4 products and each participant seemed to prefer different ones, although L'oreal (the unnatural drugstore brand) surprisingly was the most popular in terms of the blind consumption favorite. Thus, I seem to be concluding so far that consumers' emotional responses to brands definitely impact their decision-making, and the natural product movement is lending to some of these emotional responses, but it is by no means the only or primary societal influence present in the makeup market.
As far as getting more participants done, I plan to go into Skin Apeel Beauty Bar when Pam has a lot of appointments scheduled and ask walk-ins if they would be willing to participate in the study. I do not have a specific day picked out yet, but I plan to contact her Monday (I just got a job at Starbucks - super exciting! I am going in after school on Monday to fill out the final paperwork and come up with a training schedule for the next few weeks, so my hands are kind of tied until I figure out what days I am free). However, I am confident that I will be able to get 50 participants by mid-February.
This upcoming week, I will be focusing mainly on editing the written methods section of my research paper. I worked with the organization of the end of my lit review (since it previously included a justification of my blind consumption methodology and justifications for the makeup I am testing) and my methods, and I was able to cut down a lot of words (thank goodness!). After I finish smoothing over the new transitioning at the end of my lit review and the beginning of my methods, I will focus on the explanations and justifications for the vignette and Likert-scale questions in my exit survey.
(589)
Last Saturday, I conducted my first round of blind consumption testing and successfully finished 21 participants (so almost half, considering that my final goal is 50) within a few hours, so I am feeling pretty good about my progress so far. In terms of what I learned, it was really only feasible to guide one or two participants through the test at a time, given the tedious process of making sure they are testing the right lip gloss at the right time (each participant has a specific random order they need to test them in for validity reasons) and filling out the section of their blind consumption ranking form that corresponds to the product they are currently sampling. Otherwise, the process went smoothly and was a lot more efficient than I originally thought (each participant only took 5-10 minutes to complete both the test and the exit survey).
As for the results I am finding, 6/21 participants clearly favored unnatural makeup in the blind consumption even though they claimed to prefer natural brands in the exit survey and their answers to the multiple choice questions demonstrated that they were influenced by the natural product movement. 10/21 participants (not including those 6) had rankings that did not match between the blind consumption test and the exit survey, but they were simply personal misconceptions about their own taste and were not necessarily related to a perceived preference for natural makeup over unnatural makeup. The final 5 participants had similar or identical rankings in their blind consumption test and exit survey, some preferring natural products in both, some preferring unnatural products in both, and some preferring drugstore/high end products in both. Overall, participants did not lean toward any one of the 4 products and each participant seemed to prefer different ones, although L'oreal (the unnatural drugstore brand) surprisingly was the most popular in terms of the blind consumption favorite. Thus, I seem to be concluding so far that consumers' emotional responses to brands definitely impact their decision-making, and the natural product movement is lending to some of these emotional responses, but it is by no means the only or primary societal influence present in the makeup market.
As far as getting more participants done, I plan to go into Skin Apeel Beauty Bar when Pam has a lot of appointments scheduled and ask walk-ins if they would be willing to participate in the study. I do not have a specific day picked out yet, but I plan to contact her Monday (I just got a job at Starbucks - super exciting! I am going in after school on Monday to fill out the final paperwork and come up with a training schedule for the next few weeks, so my hands are kind of tied until I figure out what days I am free). However, I am confident that I will be able to get 50 participants by mid-February.
This upcoming week, I will be focusing mainly on editing the written methods section of my research paper. I worked with the organization of the end of my lit review (since it previously included a justification of my blind consumption methodology and justifications for the makeup I am testing) and my methods, and I was able to cut down a lot of words (thank goodness!). After I finish smoothing over the new transitioning at the end of my lit review and the beginning of my methods, I will focus on the explanations and justifications for the vignette and Likert-scale questions in my exit survey.
(589)
Friday, January 13, 2017
Refining the Method
01/13/2017
With 14 days of school left (how did that happen?!), we have been working on refining our methods sections and preparing to dive into research.
I am actually beginning to conduct my consumer tests tomorrow, and (fingers crossed that I am not proven wrong) I feel confident that I have a solid procedure for administering my blind consumption test and exit survey and sufficient understanding of the validity precautions I need to carry out.
However, my first shot at writing the methodology section of my paper turned out pretty weak, mostly due to poor organization, lack of justification, and ineffective presentation of complicated information.
At the beginning of my methods section, instead of diving directly into what I did, I need to articulate my research question and explain how a blind consumption test paired with an exit survey best provides the information necessary to answer it. As of right now, the explanation for why the method works is just thrown in at the end of the paper, leaving the reader confused while sifting through the procedure.
Next, I will explain why I chose lip gloss and the specific shades I did. Instead of addressing personal practical concerns for choosing lipgloss (i.e. the economical nature), I will cite why lipgloss is useful for my research (e.g. easy and quick for participants to apply, one shade works on many skin tones, its short-lasting nature (hence, its quality is not determined based on how long it lasts so much as its appearance and feel (shine, non-stickiness, etc.) meaning that participants can judge it in a short amount of time).
In explaining gathering my participants, I will point to why my sample was worthwhile for my research, for, as of right now, I mainly just focus on the sample's limitations.
My procedure needs a lot more justification, especially in terms of the exit survey and the value of using vignette and Likert scale questions to judge participant emotional responses to natural products. I also need to find a source that backs up shine, taste, texture, and color quality as key factors in assessing the quality of lip gloss so that I can justify using those categories to measure participant liking of the lip glosses in the blind consumption test. Also, when explaining the -2 to +2 scale for the questions, I should present the information in a set of tables, as opposed to using a long, drawn-out explanation within the body of the paper.
Overall, while I have a clear outlook for actually conducting my research and the method itself seems strong, I need to put a lot of work into justifying and explaining my work within the written methods section of my paper. Through some reorganization and using more sources, I think that I will be able to complete this task without too many issues.
(472)
With 14 days of school left (how did that happen?!), we have been working on refining our methods sections and preparing to dive into research.
I am actually beginning to conduct my consumer tests tomorrow, and (fingers crossed that I am not proven wrong) I feel confident that I have a solid procedure for administering my blind consumption test and exit survey and sufficient understanding of the validity precautions I need to carry out.
However, my first shot at writing the methodology section of my paper turned out pretty weak, mostly due to poor organization, lack of justification, and ineffective presentation of complicated information.
At the beginning of my methods section, instead of diving directly into what I did, I need to articulate my research question and explain how a blind consumption test paired with an exit survey best provides the information necessary to answer it. As of right now, the explanation for why the method works is just thrown in at the end of the paper, leaving the reader confused while sifting through the procedure.
Next, I will explain why I chose lip gloss and the specific shades I did. Instead of addressing personal practical concerns for choosing lipgloss (i.e. the economical nature), I will cite why lipgloss is useful for my research (e.g. easy and quick for participants to apply, one shade works on many skin tones, its short-lasting nature (hence, its quality is not determined based on how long it lasts so much as its appearance and feel (shine, non-stickiness, etc.) meaning that participants can judge it in a short amount of time).
In explaining gathering my participants, I will point to why my sample was worthwhile for my research, for, as of right now, I mainly just focus on the sample's limitations.
My procedure needs a lot more justification, especially in terms of the exit survey and the value of using vignette and Likert scale questions to judge participant emotional responses to natural products. I also need to find a source that backs up shine, taste, texture, and color quality as key factors in assessing the quality of lip gloss so that I can justify using those categories to measure participant liking of the lip glosses in the blind consumption test. Also, when explaining the -2 to +2 scale for the questions, I should present the information in a set of tables, as opposed to using a long, drawn-out explanation within the body of the paper.
Overall, while I have a clear outlook for actually conducting my research and the method itself seems strong, I need to put a lot of work into justifying and explaining my work within the written methods section of my paper. Through some reorganization and using more sources, I think that I will be able to complete this task without too many issues.
(472)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)