1) Qualitative vs Quantitative analysis

Corpus analysis can be broadly categorised as consisting of qualitative and quantitative analysis. In this section we'll look at both types and see the pros and cons associated with each. You should bear in mind that these two types of data analysis form different, but not necessary incompatible perspectives on corpus data. Qualitative analysis: Richness and Precision. The aim of qualitative analysis is a complete, detailed description. No attempt is made to assign frequencies to the linguistic features which are identified in the data, and rare phenomena receives (or should receive) the same amount of attention as more frequent phenomena. Qualitative analysis allows for fine distinctions to be drawn because it is not necessary to shoehorn the data into a finite number of classifications. Ambiguities, which are inherent in human language, can be recognised in the analysis. For example, the word "red" could be used in a corpus to signify the colour red, or as a political cateogorisation (e.g. socialism or communism). In a qualitative analysis both senses of red in the phrase "the red flag" could be recognised. The main disadvantage of qualitative approaches to corpus analysis is that their findings can not be extended to wider populations with the same degree of certainty that quantitative analyses can. This is because the findings of the research are not tested to discover whether they are statistically significant or due to chance. Quantitative analysis: Statistically reliable and generalisable results. In quantitative research we classify features, count them, and even construct more complex statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed. Findings can be generalised to a larger population, and direct comparisons can be made between two corpora, so long as valid sampling and significance techniques have been used. Thus, quantitative analysis allows us to discover which phenomena are likely to be genuine reflections of the behaviour of a language or variety, and which are merely chance occurences. The more basic task of just looking at a single language variety allows one to get a precise picture of the frequency and rarity of particular phenomena, and thus their relative normality or abnomrality. However, the picture of the data which emerges from quantitative analysis is less rich than that obtained from qualitative analysis. For statistical purposes, classifications have to be of the hard-and-fast (so-called "Aristotelian" type). An item either belongs

to class x or it doesn't. So in the above example about the phrase "the red flag" we would have to decide whether to classify "red" as "politics" or "colour". As can be seen, many linguistic terms and phenomena do not therefore belong to simple, single categories: rather they are more consistent with the recent notion of "fuzzy sets" as in the red example. Quantatitive analysis is therefore an idealisation of the data in some cases. Also, quantatitve analysis tends to sideline rare occurences. To ensure that certain statistical tests (such as chi-squared) provide reliable results, it is essential that minimum frequencies are obtained - meaning that categories may have to be collapsed into one another resulting in a loss of data richness. A recent trend From this brief discussion it can be appreciated that both qualitative and quantitative analyses have something to contribute to corpus study. There has been a recent move in social science towards multi-methodapproaches which tend to reject the narrow analytical paradigms in favour of the breadth of information which the use of more than one method may provide. In any case, as Schmied (1993) notes, a stage of qualitative research is often a precursor for quantitative analysis, since before linguistic phenomena can be classified and counted, the categories for classification must first be identified. Schmied demonstrates that corpus linguistics could benefit as much as any field from multi-method research.

Qualitative & Quantitative Factors Evaluated During The Site Selection Process
While quantitative factors have been and will continue to be very important in the site selection process, qualitative factors are also critical in order to ensure that the company makes the best decision. This is particularly true as the economies of the United States and the world become more knowledge-based. What are the most important quantitative and qualitative factors evaluated by site selection advisors and companies when making a decision regarding the location of a new or expanded operation? The list will vary depending on type of facility (i.e. manufacturing, logistics, research & technology, office), but most factors apply to all forms of projects. Please find below a summary of the most important quantitative and qualitative factors considered by companies. Quantitative Factors 1. Property Tax Rates 2. Corporate Income Tax Rates 3. Sales Tax Rates 4. Real Estate Costs 5. Utility Rates 6. Average Wage/Salary Levels 7. Construction Costs 8. Workers Compensation Rates 9. Unemployment Compensation Rates 10. Personal Income Tax Rates 11. Industry Sector Labor Pool Size 12. Infrastructure Development Costs 13. Education Achievement Levels 14. Crime Statistics 15. Frequency of Natural Disasters 16. Cost of Living Index 17. Number of Commercial Flights to Key Markets 18. Proximity to Major Key Geographic Markets 19. Unionization Rate/Right to Work versus Non-Right to Work State 20. Population of Geographic Area

Qualitative Factors 1. Level of Collaboration with Government, Educational and Utility Officials 2. Sports, Recreational and Cultural Amenities 3. Confidence in Ability of All Parties to Meet Companys Deadlines 4. Political Stability of Location 5. Climate 6. Availability of Quality Healthcare 7. Chemistry of Project Team with Local and State Officials 8. Perception of Quality of Professional Services Firms to Meet the Companys Needs 9. Predictability of Long-term Operational Costs 10. Ability to Complete Real Estate Due Diligence Process Quickly Another important part of the site selection evaluation process relates to the weighting of the key quantitative and qualitative factors. Depending on the type of project, factors will be weighted differently. As an example, for a new manufacturing facility project, issues such as utility rates, real estate costs, property tax rates, collaboration with governmental entities, and average hourly wage rates may be weighted more heavily. By contract, for a new office facility factors such as real estate costs, number of commercial flights, crime statistics, climate and industry sector labor pool size may be more important. When assisting clients, our firm weights the importance of each criterion. We then rate the risk level of each factor. Finally, we input the weighted data into a formula to compute a score for each site. This approach allows Ginovus to tailor the analysis to meet each clients needs and to adjust the formula as issues arise. We believe this allows us to provide the best possible recommendation to a client. Every project is unique and must be evaluated based upon its own individual set of circumstances. By identifying the key factors impacting a project, site selection advisors and companies can reach an informed decision. Carefully designed methodology, when combined with thorough analysis, and sometimes instinct, should lead to a successful outcome.