Moving from calculating concrete volumes to interpreting abstract interview data is one of the hardest shifts for a Quantity Surveyor. You are trained to find the “right answer” or the “market rate,” so it is natural to treat qualitative data like a survey to be tallied or a problem to be solved.
However, in qualitative research, this leads to the “Judgment Trap”, a situation where you label participants as “wrong,” “lazy,” or “correct” instead of analyzing the underlying issues.
Based on the Mirror Principle (see our previous post on The Qualitative Mirror), here is a practical guide to writing your findings chapter with academic neutrality.
1. The Three Mental Shifts
Before you write a single sentence, you must change how you view your data. You are no longer a Judge; you are an Analyst.
Shift 1: From “Verification” to “Contextualization”
The Problem: You hear an expert give an opinion, and you treat it as the “correct solution.”
The Fix: An expert’s opinion is not a fact; it is data. It represents one view of the mirror.
- Bad (Prescriptive): “The experts correctly stated that low-bid tendering is the root cause of project failure.” (You are agreeing with the expert).
- Good (Analytical): “Senior professionals consistently framed low-bid tendering as the primary driver of failure, emphasizing the conflict between financial constraints and quality assurance.” (You are describing the expert’s view).
📺 Watch this (6 mins): The Power of Understanding Multiple Realities
Why it helps: A simple explanation of why we don’t look for one “single truth” in qualitative research.
Shift 2: From “Frequency” to “Weight”
The Problem: You treat the interview like a survey. “7 out of 10 participants said…”
The Fix: We are not counting votes; we are weighing the intensity and consistency of the theme.
- Bad (Counting): “Most participants said the software is difficult.”
- Good (Weighing): “There was a dominant consensus regarding the software’s steep learning curve, particularly among junior surveyors who lacked prior training.”
📺 Watch this (4 mins): Frequency ≠ Importance in Qualitative Data
Why it helps: A clear explanation of why “counting how many people said it” often misses the real insight.
Shift 3: From “Judgment” to “Systemic Drivers”
The Problem: You assess performance. “The contractors failed to understand the contract.”
The Fix: Replace judgment adjectives (lazy, wrong, failed, good) with systemic verbs (prioritized, constrained, overlooked, emphasized).
- Bad (Judging): “Contractors were ignorant of the ISO standard.”
- Good (Systemic): “Contractors demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the ISO standard, which they attributed to the rapid turnaround times required during the tender stage.”
📺 Level Up Your Research (6 mins): Reflexivity vs. Bracketing Explained
Why it helps: This elevates you to the next level. It uses a “Suitcase” metaphor to show how to set your own judgments aside so you can see the data clearly.
2. The “Before & After” Lab
Let’s look at how a “Judge” writes versus how a “Researcher” writes, using common QS research topics.
Example A: The “Blame Game” (Payment Delays)
The Data: Contractors complained that consultants take too long to certify interim payments.
| The “Judge” (Bad) ❌ | The “Researcher” (Good) ✅ |
| What they write: “Consultants are often lazy and fail to certify payments on time. This wrongful behavior destroys the contractor’s cash flow.” | What they write: “Contractors identified the certification period as a critical bottleneck. Delays were frequently attributed to a misalignment between the contractor’s submission format and the consultant’s verification requirements.” |
| The Error: You are taking sides! You are judging the consultant as “lazy.” | The Fix: You replaced judgment with a systemic explanation (“misalignment”). You reported the friction, not the fault. |
Example B: The “Expert Trap” (BIM Adoption)
The Data: A Senior PM says, “Small firms shouldn’t use BIM; it’s too expensive for them.”
| The “Hermit” (Bad) ❌ | The “Researcher” (Good) ✅ |
| What they write: “BIM is too expensive for small firms. Therefore, small firms should not attempt to implement it.” | What they write: “Senior Project Managers perceived the initial capital cost of BIM as a prohibitive barrier for small firms, suggesting that traditional CAD workflows may remain more viable in that specific context.” |
| The Error: You treated an opinion as a fact. You turned the participant’s view into a universal rule. | The Fix: You contextualized the finding. It is not that BIM is too expensive; it is that it is perceived as a barrier by this group. |
Example C: The “Counting Trap” (Sustainable Materials)
The Data: 8 out of 10 participants mentioned “Cost” as the main barrier.
| The “Counter” (Bad) ❌ | The “Researcher” (Good) ✅ |
| What they write: “80% of participants said cost is the problem. Only 2 people mentioned availability.” | What they write: “There was a dominant consensus that financial constraints supersede environmental considerations during material selection. Issues of availability appeared as a secondary, less critical concern.” |
| The Error: Qualitative research is not a vote. Numbers mean nothing without context. | The Fix: You weighed the findings (“dominant consensus” vs “secondary concern”). You explained the relationship between the themes. |
3. The “Translation Protocol” (How to Write)
How do you actually draft these sentences? Use this 2-step process to blend participant reality with academic theory.
Step 1: The “Plain English” Draft
Write what you found using the simple terms the participants used.
- Draft: “Participants felt that ‘changing their mind’ regarding specs caused delays.”
Step 2: The “Academic Overlay”
Go back to your Literature Review. What is the academic term for “changing their mind”?
- Answer: Scope Creep or Design Variation.
- Refined Sentence: “Participants identified scope creep as a primary driver of delays, noting that clients frequently ‘changed their mind’ regarding specifications.”
⚠️ The Golden Rule:
- Never change the direct quote. If the participant said “changing their mind,” the quote must stay “changing their mind.”
- You only use the academic term (Scope Creep) in your interpretation before or after the quote.
Final Check
Before you submit your Analysis and Findings chapter, highlight every finding and ask yourself:
- Am I counting? Did I use words like “many,” “most,” or “70%”?
- Correction: Change to “consensus,” “dominant view,” or “divergent perspective.”
- Am I judging? Did I use words like “good,” “bad,” “failed,” or “correct”?
- Correction: Change to “effective,” “challenging,” “constrained,” or “aligned.”
- Am I the Hermit? Did I present an opinion as a fact?
- Correction: Add “Participants perceived…” or “Data suggests…”
Remember that your goal is not to decide who is right. Your goal is to explain why they see what they see.