What does qualititive mean in this sentence;
'disclosures had markedly increased, they were more positive than negative and they were mainly qualititive.'
I cant understand it.
I'd be careful here, in the use of what this author is saying: he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
A 'disclosure', by its very nature, is 'qualitative' because it is a person's subjective self-report of some event or happening. That these disclosures are not 'quantified' is shown in the next few words: 'more positive than negative' which is perhaps the original author's/researcher's qualitative evaluation after reading the disclosures...........and after all that, the writer of your quoted passage then caps it by saying, '...and they were mainly qualitative'. They had, perforce, to be qualitative AND all of them qualitative!!)
qualitative: it is warmer in here than outside
quantitative: it is 24 degrees in here and 1 below freezing outside.
qualitative: more were positive than negative
quantitative: 54% were positive, 40% were negative, and 6% were neutral in tone.
Hi David L.,
You input here is thought provoking. Please consider the following:
Is it necessarily true that "a disclosure by its very nature [thus, without exception], is 'qualitative' because it is a person's subjective self-report of some event or happening."?
Consider the following September 19, 2007 CorporateCounsel.net blog article that discusses the pressing need for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to begin requiring more disclosure concerning financial institutions' "risks associated with climate change."
Certainly, any initiative "to assess and disclose their financial risks from climate change and legislation” would of necessity require objective criteria for assessing such financial risk; otherwise such a requirement -- if subjectively determined, i.e., determined uniquely according to each financial institution's whims -- would be rendered meaningless.
Taking the above article further by way of example, each of the following investment risk categories cited within the article could be considered a qualitative risk distinction:
It follows, then, that a standard method for determining a quantitative risk assessment for each of the above risk categories would need to be objectively determined (by implication, by the SEC) and then applied by each financial institution within the SEC's purview. Each financial institution would then be required to disclose its risks -- once again, arrived at by objective means -- to its investors.
- Physical risks arising from climate change that are considered material to operations or financial condition;
- Financial risk and opportunities associated with “present or probable greenhouse gas regulation;” and
- Legal proceedings associated with climate change.
As far as the specific meaning of the text that hcoomber87 cited in the initiating post to this thread, I thought it would be best for hcoomber87 to first consider the meaning of the word qualitative (via consulting a dictionary) and then apply its meaning to the text cited.
- All the best.
Last edited by Monticello; 10-Mar-2009 at 02:09.
Hmm - a little too sweeping in my implication, when my mind was really thinking of the kind of 'disclosures' the author was referring to!
Hi David L.,
With all respect due, wouldn't the supposition that "A 'disclosure', by its very nature, is 'qualitative' because it is a person's subjective self-report of some event or happening." (-your exact words from your post above) be the most sweeping (yet paradoxically, constricting) definition that one could possibly impose?
Further, imputing such an understanding to the word disclosure from the given text cited: 'disclosures had markedly increased, they were more positive than negative and they were mainly qualititive.' appears a bit of a stretch to me.
What if the disclosures referred to here (in the original text cited) are of necessity dictated by some standard governing criteria, such as the control aspects of a scientific experiment, or a previously agreed upon method for data analysis, etc.? It's a bit of a leap to assume that such cannot be the case -- especially given the brief original context. Isn't it?
Let's play fair.
-All the best.
Last edited by Monticello; 10-Mar-2009 at 04:40.