Although my data analysis is not completed, I believe I have gone deep enough analyzing the interview and blog data for each of my participants. Consistent patterns have emerged enough that I am ready to begin forming a grounded theory. This is when I take all the pieces I have found and arranging them into patterns.
Because the most complex pattern in my data is about social relationships, I will use the data to create graphic organizers (undecided on which type at this time) to visualize the social relationships and how they help answer and address my research questions. I believe I have some firm grounding based in the literature I reviewed, most notably one model that address the host culture complex. I believe I can connect this model with the graphic organizers I will be creating for each of my participants. After I can visualize the social relationships in connection to my research questions and one or more models and theories for each of my participants, then I believe I can begin a cross-case analysis.
This morning I completed this last stage of data analysis for my "last" participant. I consider her the last one only because she was the last participant I interviewed. I wrote in my memos that this analysis affected me more than the other in terms of questioning my research methods. Since this just happened, I'm unsure if I should include this part of self-reflection and critical analysis elsewhere than in my memos. I believe this critical analysis was raised in at least one of my works cited in the literature review, however it is not related to my research questions directly. It raises more philosophical concerns for analyzing qualitative data, making me more aware of my own biases than previously, or at least in the recent past. I am thankful that this last exercise in data analysis has raised this awareness before I write about my findings.
I am now at the point where I need to review the key chapters and sections of my grounded theory texts to make sure I'm ready for the next phase, to better identify the next phase, and to better equip me with the mindset and vocabulary to discuss the next analytical process.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Deep Analysis
I've spent most of my Thanksgiving break (since Wednesday) conducting deeper single case analyses of my participants. Today I have completed the fourth of five, and I'm pleased with the patterns I'm finding. After I complete the fifth single case analysis either tomorrow or next weekend, I will be able to start organizing the data into categories to form a grounded theory.
My strategy at this point is to continue my immersion into the data without much interference from the literature. From 2011 to early 2013, I have been immersed in the literature, and I believe I have a few theories and models that will fit in well with my grounded theory. I don't know for sure, and I don't want to check as I the data needs to guide the analysis. If I crack open the literature now, I may be tempted to make the data fit a model or theory, which will weaken my grounded theory.
I'm interested to see how my grounded theory supports or aligns with pre-existing theories. Even more so, I'd like to see if my grounded theory shows that another theory or two may be standing on shaky ground because I may have contradictory evidence. However, I would be elated if my grounded theory help link two or more pre-existing theories as my research is at the intersection of multiple disciplines: English language teacher education, sociocultural anthropology, intercultural communication, and adjustment psychology. At this point, I only have feelings and inklings, so I need to be patient and finish the single case analysis.
Because this is a multiple case study, I need to find patterns that are found across all the studies before forming a unified grounded theory. I may be able to create several smaller theories based on a fraction of the multiple cases, but this is less important now. However, my data may reveal that the unique data for each case may help create a more compelling theory.
If you are a well-disciplined and experienced researcher, you may wince at the previous few paragraphs because I seem so naive, but this is the purpose of this post. This is what the mindset is like for someone working on his own research project for the first time from start to finish. To put your mind at ease, once I complete the single case analysis for my fifth and final participant, I plan to revisit the textbooks concerning grounded theory and qualitative data analysis. These will guide me more than my inklings and feelings, which are logged in my data analysis memos.
Another reason I am posting this is that I am a bit giddy with getting this far in my analysis and I love the process of discovery. Every stage of data analysis has been rewarding, and I continue to learn more and more from my data in addition to learning more and more about the research process. Perhaps I'm good at fooling myself, but I believe I'm lucky that I am enjoying the initial stages of data analysis just as much as data collection.
The frustration is that not many others I know care about the whole study. It's like being the only one the theater that laughed at a particular line or situation in the film or play. I wish I could share this joy but I cannot. I'm beginning to understand the mad scientist.
My strategy at this point is to continue my immersion into the data without much interference from the literature. From 2011 to early 2013, I have been immersed in the literature, and I believe I have a few theories and models that will fit in well with my grounded theory. I don't know for sure, and I don't want to check as I the data needs to guide the analysis. If I crack open the literature now, I may be tempted to make the data fit a model or theory, which will weaken my grounded theory.
I'm interested to see how my grounded theory supports or aligns with pre-existing theories. Even more so, I'd like to see if my grounded theory shows that another theory or two may be standing on shaky ground because I may have contradictory evidence. However, I would be elated if my grounded theory help link two or more pre-existing theories as my research is at the intersection of multiple disciplines: English language teacher education, sociocultural anthropology, intercultural communication, and adjustment psychology. At this point, I only have feelings and inklings, so I need to be patient and finish the single case analysis.
Because this is a multiple case study, I need to find patterns that are found across all the studies before forming a unified grounded theory. I may be able to create several smaller theories based on a fraction of the multiple cases, but this is less important now. However, my data may reveal that the unique data for each case may help create a more compelling theory.
If you are a well-disciplined and experienced researcher, you may wince at the previous few paragraphs because I seem so naive, but this is the purpose of this post. This is what the mindset is like for someone working on his own research project for the first time from start to finish. To put your mind at ease, once I complete the single case analysis for my fifth and final participant, I plan to revisit the textbooks concerning grounded theory and qualitative data analysis. These will guide me more than my inklings and feelings, which are logged in my data analysis memos.
Another reason I am posting this is that I am a bit giddy with getting this far in my analysis and I love the process of discovery. Every stage of data analysis has been rewarding, and I continue to learn more and more from my data in addition to learning more and more about the research process. Perhaps I'm good at fooling myself, but I believe I'm lucky that I am enjoying the initial stages of data analysis just as much as data collection.
The frustration is that not many others I know care about the whole study. It's like being the only one the theater that laughed at a particular line or situation in the film or play. I wish I could share this joy but I cannot. I'm beginning to understand the mad scientist.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
The Long Road to Analysis
In late September, I completed my data collection, which actually ended in early August when including the removal of the 6th participant. In early October, I met with one of my dissertation co-chairs to discuss the data and what to do with it. It was agreed that I should code for themes with a date set in late October, which I didn't believe I could meet because my full-time job was becoming more hectic and the added stress would take away from productive time for my dissertation. While that was true for a week or so, I was able to meet the deadline because there was a long enough lull in October for me to complete coding for themes.
Although only 10 themes were requested, I submitted 11 themes that stood out among all the participants. I also included smaller themes that only emerged across one or some of the participants. Once my co-chairs received my themes, I knew that I wouldn't hear from them soon because I sent them a lot more than probably both parties anticipated. Additionally, I submitted the themes right before a busy conference season and shortly after the midterm week of the fall semester.
To bide my time, I took the suggestion from the same co-chair to revise chapter 3, in which I proposed my research methods. Now that the data collection was finished and the data analysis had begun, I could change the whole chapter from future tense to past tense. I also deleted the report on my pilot study from the chapter because the pilot study was not approved by IRB, thus prohibiting me from using and publishing the data.
I got a little anxious a few weeks later when I felt like I wasn't being productive with my dissertation. I couldn't move forward with the data analysis because I hadn't received feedback from my themes yet. To feel productive, I started looking for scholarly journals to inspire me to write about my seemingly unique data collection process as it regards to social media. I have received feedback from a few peers that believe it is worth writing about for publication. In addition, I wanted to start engaging social media more directly too.
Just as I was gaining steam with these projects, I got an automated message from IRB asking for an annual update on the project. I hadn't realized that it was almost a year since I started filling out the IRB application. Because data collection was over, I didn't expect IRB to find any issues with my progress. I was wrong. On my application, I didn't describe my member checking process that I planned to initiate after I completed data analysis. Although I implied it in the email scripts and interview questions, it was not made clear in the application. Understandably, IRB loves clarity. Fortunately for me, it only took about a week to resolve this issue. A few days later, I received feedback about my themes, and it was a joyous occasion.
Getting the green light to continue my analysis was one reason for my elation, but another was that the feedback was more helpful than I expected as a guide. I could instantly plan a strategy for analysis that would take me to forming a grounded theory in line with some established models and theories from the literature. It took me a good week to calm down from this euphoria before I could resume analysis. Another reason for the week delay was yet another hectic week at my job.
Now that Thanksgiving week has arrived, I will have plenty of time to get a large chunk of the deeper analysis completed. I am now projecting to complete these stage of analysis by the second week in December, leaving me the time up to Christmas to determine if I have enough evidence and a strong enough argument for a grounded theory. I am certain that I have enough evidence, but I'm not as confident with my argument yet, and that's what this next stage of analysis is all about.
You don't need to guess what I will be thankful for this year's Thanksgiving! All in all, I am still enjoying the majority of this dissertation process. The key to this enjoyment is my passion for the project and already realizing practical implications through social media and my current full-time job helping faculty with professional and curriculum development.
Although only 10 themes were requested, I submitted 11 themes that stood out among all the participants. I also included smaller themes that only emerged across one or some of the participants. Once my co-chairs received my themes, I knew that I wouldn't hear from them soon because I sent them a lot more than probably both parties anticipated. Additionally, I submitted the themes right before a busy conference season and shortly after the midterm week of the fall semester.
To bide my time, I took the suggestion from the same co-chair to revise chapter 3, in which I proposed my research methods. Now that the data collection was finished and the data analysis had begun, I could change the whole chapter from future tense to past tense. I also deleted the report on my pilot study from the chapter because the pilot study was not approved by IRB, thus prohibiting me from using and publishing the data.
I got a little anxious a few weeks later when I felt like I wasn't being productive with my dissertation. I couldn't move forward with the data analysis because I hadn't received feedback from my themes yet. To feel productive, I started looking for scholarly journals to inspire me to write about my seemingly unique data collection process as it regards to social media. I have received feedback from a few peers that believe it is worth writing about for publication. In addition, I wanted to start engaging social media more directly too.
Just as I was gaining steam with these projects, I got an automated message from IRB asking for an annual update on the project. I hadn't realized that it was almost a year since I started filling out the IRB application. Because data collection was over, I didn't expect IRB to find any issues with my progress. I was wrong. On my application, I didn't describe my member checking process that I planned to initiate after I completed data analysis. Although I implied it in the email scripts and interview questions, it was not made clear in the application. Understandably, IRB loves clarity. Fortunately for me, it only took about a week to resolve this issue. A few days later, I received feedback about my themes, and it was a joyous occasion.
Getting the green light to continue my analysis was one reason for my elation, but another was that the feedback was more helpful than I expected as a guide. I could instantly plan a strategy for analysis that would take me to forming a grounded theory in line with some established models and theories from the literature. It took me a good week to calm down from this euphoria before I could resume analysis. Another reason for the week delay was yet another hectic week at my job.
Now that Thanksgiving week has arrived, I will have plenty of time to get a large chunk of the deeper analysis completed. I am now projecting to complete these stage of analysis by the second week in December, leaving me the time up to Christmas to determine if I have enough evidence and a strong enough argument for a grounded theory. I am certain that I have enough evidence, but I'm not as confident with my argument yet, and that's what this next stage of analysis is all about.
You don't need to guess what I will be thankful for this year's Thanksgiving! All in all, I am still enjoying the majority of this dissertation process. The key to this enjoyment is my passion for the project and already realizing practical implications through social media and my current full-time job helping faculty with professional and curriculum development.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
IRB and Social Media Research
This week I encountered an interesting situation regarding IRB and my data collection procedures. My last participant, who I blogged about in the previous posts, published his online video response to my interview questions on YouTube. Although I knew he would create online videos, I didn't expect him to post it online so quickly. This route of collecting interview data was not approved by IRB, so I understand the ethical implications here. I informed IRB that I would collect data via Qualtrics or Adobe Connect.
Back in January, I spent a few weeks through email discussions finding the best way to collect interview data from my participants who live abroad. My first suggestions were email interviews and Skype interviews, which have been done many times in the literature I reviewed. These were not acceptable methods for IRB because there is a confidentiality risk because the University of Iowa does not host my participant's email accounts (so they could approve my emails to them, but not their emails to me) and the university does not host Skype. Because I had experience with Adobe Connect, the web conferencing alternative was easy to choose. However, I had difficulty accepting Qualtrics as an alternative to email interviews because it's a survey software program, so the interview would flow more like a survey with 99% open-ended questions. Nowhere in the literature did I find Qualtrics being used for interviews. Even after collecting the data, it was more like a survey, but IRB approved that route. And the university's IT advisor on data collection also agreed that Qualtrics was the best way to go.
So when my participant suggested submitting a video, I knew that IRB would not support it given the arguments for not permitting their email accounts or Skype. It would have to be something that the university could provide. In retrospect, perhaps IRB had a waiver for the participant to sign saying that he acknowledges that his data would not be confidential. He didn't care as he willingly and knowingly made it public. He didn't have the time for spending time on Qualtrics. Perhaps though stronger persuasion, he may have done an Adobe Connect interview. But I got the impression he wanted to be in control of the data, so perhaps where IRB drew the line.
IRB's conclusion was to order me to destroy the data, which is an order that informed me that IRB does not clearly understand social media research. First of all, I do not own the data, so how can I destroy it? They did not request me to ask/tell/order my participant to take the video off YouTube. I'm sure that's another ethical complication there as he has the right to refuse the order. Nonetheless, thousands of people have already viewed the video so the damage, if any, is done.
The damage is completely internal or procedural, but the main purpose of IRB is protect human subjects from physical and psychological harm. It seems to me that I've been asked to "destroy" the data out of a technicality that had no threat of physical or psychological harm to my participant, especially given the fact that he has published over a thousand of YouTube videos with similar or even more personal/revealing narratives.
Finally, I'd like to analyze the term "destroy" a bit further. Once something is published online, it is never destroyed. It always exists in a server somewhere, so I cannot completely physically destroy the data. One of my dissertation co-chairs used the term "remove," but she didn't specify from what. I cannot remove it from the Internet, but I can remove it from my dissertation. The data still exists for anyone to collect, analyze, and write about. I am happy to have played a role in providing this data to those who find it useful. Looking at the comments under the YouTube video, I found that some English language teachers have already found it helpful, so one of my goals for publishing my dissertation has been accomplished. So I'm learning that this type of publication may affect more change than publishing through a peer-reviewed article, which very few practitioners read anyway. I'm all for accessibility.
Back in January, I spent a few weeks through email discussions finding the best way to collect interview data from my participants who live abroad. My first suggestions were email interviews and Skype interviews, which have been done many times in the literature I reviewed. These were not acceptable methods for IRB because there is a confidentiality risk because the University of Iowa does not host my participant's email accounts (so they could approve my emails to them, but not their emails to me) and the university does not host Skype. Because I had experience with Adobe Connect, the web conferencing alternative was easy to choose. However, I had difficulty accepting Qualtrics as an alternative to email interviews because it's a survey software program, so the interview would flow more like a survey with 99% open-ended questions. Nowhere in the literature did I find Qualtrics being used for interviews. Even after collecting the data, it was more like a survey, but IRB approved that route. And the university's IT advisor on data collection also agreed that Qualtrics was the best way to go.
So when my participant suggested submitting a video, I knew that IRB would not support it given the arguments for not permitting their email accounts or Skype. It would have to be something that the university could provide. In retrospect, perhaps IRB had a waiver for the participant to sign saying that he acknowledges that his data would not be confidential. He didn't care as he willingly and knowingly made it public. He didn't have the time for spending time on Qualtrics. Perhaps though stronger persuasion, he may have done an Adobe Connect interview. But I got the impression he wanted to be in control of the data, so perhaps where IRB drew the line.
IRB's conclusion was to order me to destroy the data, which is an order that informed me that IRB does not clearly understand social media research. First of all, I do not own the data, so how can I destroy it? They did not request me to ask/tell/order my participant to take the video off YouTube. I'm sure that's another ethical complication there as he has the right to refuse the order. Nonetheless, thousands of people have already viewed the video so the damage, if any, is done.
The damage is completely internal or procedural, but the main purpose of IRB is protect human subjects from physical and psychological harm. It seems to me that I've been asked to "destroy" the data out of a technicality that had no threat of physical or psychological harm to my participant, especially given the fact that he has published over a thousand of YouTube videos with similar or even more personal/revealing narratives.
Finally, I'd like to analyze the term "destroy" a bit further. Once something is published online, it is never destroyed. It always exists in a server somewhere, so I cannot completely physically destroy the data. One of my dissertation co-chairs used the term "remove," but she didn't specify from what. I cannot remove it from the Internet, but I can remove it from my dissertation. The data still exists for anyone to collect, analyze, and write about. I am happy to have played a role in providing this data to those who find it useful. Looking at the comments under the YouTube video, I found that some English language teachers have already found it helpful, so one of my goals for publishing my dissertation has been accomplished. So I'm learning that this type of publication may affect more change than publishing through a peer-reviewed article, which very few practitioners read anyway. I'm all for accessibility.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Diving Into Analysis
My sixth and apparently final participant has finally found time for the interview part of my data collection. Last week, I finally completed viewing about 40 of his online videos regarding teaching English in Japan and/or adjusting to living and working in Japan. The remaining 1000 videos were more about current events in Japan or general information about Japanese culture.
As the interviews take place over the course of the week, I hope, I will start the more in-depth phase of analysis of all of my participants' data. At the same time, I will begin writing my first draft of Chapter 4. Actually, I already wrote the first paragraph giving a general introduction to the participants. Besides the final interview, I perceive much time of this week spent on organizing my approach to analysis as I write Chapter 4.
Coincidentally, as I am diving into analysis of my data, I am also beginning my new weekly routine of swimming. Since I have started my full-time job, there are two things that I want to continue that abruptly stopped back in April: 1) using the university's facilities that I'm paying for, 2) getting some good exercise. Although this seems like aside to the rest of this blog, I believe that physical exercise may enhance my mental exercise for data analysis.
As I mentioned earlier, my preliminary analysis took part during data collection of the blog data. I created two very broad themes: 1) teaching English and 2) cultural adjustment. The golden ticket is when these themes overlap, which seems to happen often for some participants and not much for others. This is where I will look to develop a grounded theory. Although this seems easy, I'm dealing with the murky nature of my participants' beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions which are made more complex with own beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. My dissertation chairs and committee will demonstrate how this gets even more complicated when my interpretation is interpreted by them. This is not science.
Another matter I need to consider is condensing my analysis into a limited number of pages for Chapter 4. My first 3 chapters are already longer than most other dissertations I have seen. I've been considering a page limit when describing the context and adjustment process for each participant. I have arbitrarily chosen 4 pages, thus 24 pages for all 6 participants. This does not include the general introduction or the cross-case analysis or the establishment of any grounded theory. I am the type of person who can write a lot and does not mind writing a lot, so I need to exert some type of self-control. I'd like to thank all of my writing teachers who brought me to this point. However, I didn't mention the quality of my writing. Perhaps you can take a guess by the mostly informal prose you see here.
As the interviews take place over the course of the week, I hope, I will start the more in-depth phase of analysis of all of my participants' data. At the same time, I will begin writing my first draft of Chapter 4. Actually, I already wrote the first paragraph giving a general introduction to the participants. Besides the final interview, I perceive much time of this week spent on organizing my approach to analysis as I write Chapter 4.
Coincidentally, as I am diving into analysis of my data, I am also beginning my new weekly routine of swimming. Since I have started my full-time job, there are two things that I want to continue that abruptly stopped back in April: 1) using the university's facilities that I'm paying for, 2) getting some good exercise. Although this seems like aside to the rest of this blog, I believe that physical exercise may enhance my mental exercise for data analysis.
As I mentioned earlier, my preliminary analysis took part during data collection of the blog data. I created two very broad themes: 1) teaching English and 2) cultural adjustment. The golden ticket is when these themes overlap, which seems to happen often for some participants and not much for others. This is where I will look to develop a grounded theory. Although this seems easy, I'm dealing with the murky nature of my participants' beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions which are made more complex with own beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. My dissertation chairs and committee will demonstrate how this gets even more complicated when my interpretation is interpreted by them. This is not science.
Another matter I need to consider is condensing my analysis into a limited number of pages for Chapter 4. My first 3 chapters are already longer than most other dissertations I have seen. I've been considering a page limit when describing the context and adjustment process for each participant. I have arbitrarily chosen 4 pages, thus 24 pages for all 6 participants. This does not include the general introduction or the cross-case analysis or the establishment of any grounded theory. I am the type of person who can write a lot and does not mind writing a lot, so I need to exert some type of self-control. I'd like to thank all of my writing teachers who brought me to this point. However, I didn't mention the quality of my writing. Perhaps you can take a guess by the mostly informal prose you see here.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
The Last But Not Least Participant
After my web conferencing interview, I have completed interviewing three of the six participants who gave me their informed consent. Two of the remaining three participants have completed two of their three interview sessions, and I believe one will be done by the end of the weekend. I have not yet begun interviewing the sixth and perhaps last participant for my study because he has been on vacation for the past few weeks, but he should be back soon if not already.
The last participant provides an interesting approach to data collection as he is more of a vlogger than a blogger. (A vlogger is a video blogger.) Actually three of my participants have or had vlogs on their own YouTube channels, but this participant is the most dedicated towards his videos. Of the other two participants, one started vlogging but switched to blogging, and that is where most of my document data for him is found. For the most part, the other participant's videos support her blog, and she doesn't produce as many videos as she used to.
So how dedicated is this last participant to his online videos? I say very much so as I spent the last few weeks cataloging his videos, which basically means listing all of his videos in chronological order and initially coding them when their titles are directly relevant to my research questions. Unlike for most other bloggers, I did not date each video because to find the date, I have to play the video, and when I play a video, I lose my place on YouTube where I was cataloging videos. This isn't usually a problem, but, as of yesterday, I have cataloged 1036 videos!
He has more than 1036 videos because halfway through my cataloging I stopped listing repeated videos, which don't happen often, and a series of videos on sumo wrestling, which do not directly answer my research questions. If sumo wrestling videos dominated his channel, then I would have considered that they may, but they don't.
With 1036 cataloged videos, I have come to a dilemma. How can I possibly thoroughly code all these videos? Coding all these videos requires thoroughly transcribing all of them. The average length of these videos seems to be around 10 minutes. There are many that go beyond 15 and 20 minutes, but there are also some that are less than 5. If the average is truly 10 minutes, then that's 10,360 minutes of video. That 172 hours and 40 minutes! Now, when I took courses on qualitative research I had to practice transcribing recorded interviews. When I wasn't tired, I could transcribe about 20 minutes of raw data in 1 hour. So to transcribe 10,360 minutes would at least take me over 31,000 hours which is 518 hours. If I dedicated 8 hours a day to transcribing these videos, it would take me over 2 months straight, and that's if I didn't slow down! After that, then I could start coding. I wonder how many pages of text that would be.
Now, if I were rich or well-funded, I would hire an army of people to transcribe and code his videos. No!
So...I decided to not be as rigorous with analyzing his videos as I am with my other participants, who average about 10 videos each. This is not a case study, it's a multiple case study, and I want to spend roughly the same amount of time analyzing the data for each participant. Otherwise, this last participant would definitely dominate my time and perhaps my study.
Fortunately, fortunately, my initial coding turned up only 42 videos of the 1036 that directly answer my research questions. One of my other participants didn't even blog 42 times. Anyway, once I transcribe one of these videos, I will check how many pages long it is because nearly all of my bloggers didn't blog more than a page per post. I think I can handle a rough estimate of 420 minutes (7 hours) of videos to transcribe and code.
And I didn't even get to write about how I will collect and analyze the last participant's interview data. That's another interesting post for later.
The last participant provides an interesting approach to data collection as he is more of a vlogger than a blogger. (A vlogger is a video blogger.) Actually three of my participants have or had vlogs on their own YouTube channels, but this participant is the most dedicated towards his videos. Of the other two participants, one started vlogging but switched to blogging, and that is where most of my document data for him is found. For the most part, the other participant's videos support her blog, and she doesn't produce as many videos as she used to.
So how dedicated is this last participant to his online videos? I say very much so as I spent the last few weeks cataloging his videos, which basically means listing all of his videos in chronological order and initially coding them when their titles are directly relevant to my research questions. Unlike for most other bloggers, I did not date each video because to find the date, I have to play the video, and when I play a video, I lose my place on YouTube where I was cataloging videos. This isn't usually a problem, but, as of yesterday, I have cataloged 1036 videos!
He has more than 1036 videos because halfway through my cataloging I stopped listing repeated videos, which don't happen often, and a series of videos on sumo wrestling, which do not directly answer my research questions. If sumo wrestling videos dominated his channel, then I would have considered that they may, but they don't.
With 1036 cataloged videos, I have come to a dilemma. How can I possibly thoroughly code all these videos? Coding all these videos requires thoroughly transcribing all of them. The average length of these videos seems to be around 10 minutes. There are many that go beyond 15 and 20 minutes, but there are also some that are less than 5. If the average is truly 10 minutes, then that's 10,360 minutes of video. That 172 hours and 40 minutes! Now, when I took courses on qualitative research I had to practice transcribing recorded interviews. When I wasn't tired, I could transcribe about 20 minutes of raw data in 1 hour. So to transcribe 10,360 minutes would at least take me over 31,000 hours which is 518 hours. If I dedicated 8 hours a day to transcribing these videos, it would take me over 2 months straight, and that's if I didn't slow down! After that, then I could start coding. I wonder how many pages of text that would be.
Now, if I were rich or well-funded, I would hire an army of people to transcribe and code his videos. No!
So...I decided to not be as rigorous with analyzing his videos as I am with my other participants, who average about 10 videos each. This is not a case study, it's a multiple case study, and I want to spend roughly the same amount of time analyzing the data for each participant. Otherwise, this last participant would definitely dominate my time and perhaps my study.
Fortunately, fortunately, my initial coding turned up only 42 videos of the 1036 that directly answer my research questions. One of my other participants didn't even blog 42 times. Anyway, once I transcribe one of these videos, I will check how many pages long it is because nearly all of my bloggers didn't blog more than a page per post. I think I can handle a rough estimate of 420 minutes (7 hours) of videos to transcribe and code.
And I didn't even get to write about how I will collect and analyze the last participant's interview data. That's another interesting post for later.
Friday, August 9, 2013
First Web Conferencing Interview
On Sunday, I conducted my first real web conferencing interview for research purposes. I mention real because I've conducted two online interviews as pilots, however they were through Skype, which my IRB does not approve because Skype calls can be easily intercepted, and therefore I cannot guarantee privacy or confidentiality. However, with the latest news concerning the US government PRISM surveillance program and corporate compliance, I don't think I can guarantee privacy or confidentiality with any online communication. The IRB believed that Adobe Connect offered more security than Skype, so I was able to conduct my first web conferencing interview using Adobe Connect. One reason I chose Adobe Connect was that I had 3 years of experience using the program to assist the Education Policy & Leadership Studies department in the College of Education with their hybrid online courses.
If you're interested in how I did this, I created a meeting on Adobe Connect for this purpose. When you create a meeting, a link is provided to be shared with guest participants. I shared the link with my research participant who logged in as a guest, and then I helped her set up her webcam and mic. Before that, however, I let her know the specifications for joining an Adobe Connect meeting. The only preferred specification that she couldn't meet was avoiding a wireless connection. Fortunately for us, the wireless connection was strong enough that it was only dropped once during the 2.5-hour interview.
Adobe Connect offers a recording option, but I opted out because I did not want the conference stored in the institution's Adobe Connect account and I did need to capture video. Instead I captured the audio portion of the interview using Audacity. Because I was using my Macbook Pro, I could have easily used Garageband as well but I piloted with Audacity, and it demonstrated reliability so there was no reason for me to change. If I wanted to publish the audio interview, then Garageband would have been easier, but I cannot and will not publish the raw interview.
What did I learn from this type of interview process?
If you're interested in how I did this, I created a meeting on Adobe Connect for this purpose. When you create a meeting, a link is provided to be shared with guest participants. I shared the link with my research participant who logged in as a guest, and then I helped her set up her webcam and mic. Before that, however, I let her know the specifications for joining an Adobe Connect meeting. The only preferred specification that she couldn't meet was avoiding a wireless connection. Fortunately for us, the wireless connection was strong enough that it was only dropped once during the 2.5-hour interview.
Adobe Connect offers a recording option, but I opted out because I did not want the conference stored in the institution's Adobe Connect account and I did need to capture video. Instead I captured the audio portion of the interview using Audacity. Because I was using my Macbook Pro, I could have easily used Garageband as well but I piloted with Audacity, and it demonstrated reliability so there was no reason for me to change. If I wanted to publish the audio interview, then Garageband would have been easier, but I cannot and will not publish the raw interview.
What did I learn from this type of interview process?
- Adobe Connect has a greater broadcasting delay problem than Skype. I have used Skype to communicate with pilot participants and friends in Japan and Germany, and I experienced little to no delay in the communication. However, Adobe Connect had a noticeable delay for my communication to South Korea. I do not believe South Korea is at fault for this delay because no country is more wired than South Korea.
- The technical issues doubled my anxiety for the first 30 minutes. Not only was I nervous because I wanted my first interview to go well, but my concern for having little to no technical issues made it more difficult for me to focus on my participant. It was during the first 30 minutes that the connection dropped, so I was a little freaked out at that point.
- The delay took a while to get used to. Not only did I have to learn a new way to pace the interview, but I also had to cope with hearing myself delayed on her end. Every time I asked a question, my echo would repeat that question about 5-10 seconds later. That echo sometimes helped me figure out when she would start speaking, so I didn't feel uncomfortable with the silent pauses on her end.
- Even if you want to plow through a lengthy interview, take a break when you get one. I purposefully divided my interview into 3 sections. Although I skipped the first break, I took the second one, and I needed it. After that break, I was much calmer and more confident about the interview process. That break also gave Adobe Connect a break in that I noticed the echo issue was toned down in the second half or third third.
- An interview script is your friend. When I piloted my interview face-to-face, it was easier to let it flow into a conversation. But because of the irregularities of a web conferencing interview, this flow could not be transferred. Perhaps if I had more practice interviewing with delayed online communication, perhaps I could discover a new conversational flow. However, I would prefer to avoid this type of delay if I could. The interview script always kept me focused when a technical issue distracted me. The interview script worked well on my computer because I could set up the script next to the video of my participant, so I could maintain eye contact much better than a face-to-face interview. So that's one positive aspect of conducting an interview online.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)