How it works?

You can either click on a letter, scroll through the terms, or search by a word you want.

I'd like to say that this was a really exceptionally well run event - even when compared to some of the larger/longer national/international conferences that I have attended. You guys had thought of everything!

Glasgow Grows Audience Conference 2009 Delegate

Jargon Buster

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z

Annotations, accreditations and referencing

What does this mean?

A part of professional good practice where, if someone else’s work is referred to, an appropriate reference (to enable the reader to trace it back to source) is given.

This should be accompanied by an acknowledgement of this other author’s contribution, together with details of the source used.(See also Caveats and Qualifications).

How did we get this definition?

The whole point of this resource is to enable arts managers and workers to put in place an enhanced approach to analysing and understanding audience data. This relies on working at an appropriate level of accuracy, precision and consistency. But even once this has been achieved, it could be pointless – unless the results of the research and analysis are communicated in a way that is robust and convincing to the reader.

One way of thinking about a report on research or analysis findings, is to consider it as if it was a case being made in a court of law. Each assertion or observation made not only needs to be put in terms that seem reasonable and logical, but also need to be backed up by a certain rigour in documenting and substantiating them.

So good practice in reporting on research findings makes it essential that statements and assertions made are reinforced through an appropriate use of caveats, acknowledgement of sources, and referencing.

Related and similar definitions

If there is any aspect relating to the way in which a finding was arrived at that is questionable – or could potentially undermine the resulting conclusions – this needs to be pointed out. The way to do this is to use annotations.

Hence, where appropriate, accompany any report of a finding or conclusion with a detailed note on: how it was arrived at (i.e. the methodology and assumptions used),when and where the relevant research was carried out,the size of the sample being used, and any other issues that may compromise the conclusions (for instance, the days of the week involved, the number of times a similar exercise has been carried out or the nature of the research instrument (e.g. self-completion questionnaire, analysis of partial sales data, etc.)

When to use

This whole group of procedures should be used whenever it is especially important for a report or set of conclusions to be considered as being robust and compiled according to good practice.