I was reading the slides from the STAR East 2005 lightning talks. Obviously I am missing a bunch of context just reading the slides, but I was interested in one set by David Gilbert from Sirius Software Quality Associates about Exploratory Testing. His presentation seems to be specifically about demonstrating the value of exploratory testing to those who fund the testing. The slides state that professional presentation of the results of exploratory testing can be labor intensive, requiring screen grabbers, lots of cut and paste, and reams of paper for printing the results. He recommends keylogging, screenshots, and video (Gilbert, 2005).

Reading this reminded me again of the similarities between exploratory testing and qualitative research in academia. Qualitative research results in mounds of thick, rich descriptions of few case studies. Rather than asking 100 people about 4 items on a survey, you might ask 4 people 100 questions. It's a different kind of research based on a different epistemological starting point.

Qualitative research and exploratory testing are also both plagued by the same type of discrimination - people think that quantitative statistics are inherently more accurate than qualitative research. Similiary, in software testing, people think that structured (or even automated) testing is more accurate than exploratory testing. The truth is that each offers different benefits: scripted testing offers more accountability, while exploratory testing offers more adaptability (Kaner & Bach, 2004, slide 13).

Sources
Gilbert, D. (2005). Communicating the value of exploratory testing. STAR East 2005 lightining talks. STAR East. Orlando, Florida, May 16-21, 2005. Retrieved on May 24, 2005 from here, slides 27-33.

Kaner, C. & Bach, J. (2004). The nature of exploratory testing. Exploratory & Risk-Based Testing. Retrieved on May 26, 2005 from here. (PDF)