Journal Entry #2

    I have now completed a one-page summary of the five traditions of qualitative research. I did this in an attempt to gain a greater understanding of the traditions and, more specifically, to understand them well enough to differentiate between them.  I do not know why I had such trouble with a full understanding of this but this one-page guide has helped me, both in creating it and in reviewing it.  It is a table with two columns and five rows.  Each row lists one of the traditions with its definition or explanation on the left side.  On the right side are characteristics, descriptions, and an example based on Creswell's book.  I can go to this sheet whenever I get any of the traditions confused.

    We talked in class about question types.  Those listed on the overhead (and website) were Essential Questions, Extra Questions, Throw-away Questions, and Probing Questions.  Essential questions are those related to the focus of the study.  Extra questions are additional questions which can check on the reliability of essential questions.  Throw-away questions may be necessary to facilitate the flow and continuation of an accurate interview but aren't necessarily related to the central question.  Probing questions probe into responses attempting to gain additional information.  What I found most meaningful was that I actually realized when I was asking these question types.  If I had completed this interview before being exposed to question types, I would have perceived only one type of question: "Information gathering questions."  However, being exposed to this material has allowed me to realize the different question types during the interview process.  For example, during my interview it seemed that the girl I was questioning had perceived that she had told me everything I wanted to know.  It seemed like a question/answer drill.  Therefore, I took this opportunity to talk with her about taking classes on campus.  I was attempting to make "small talk" (throw-away questions) with her in order to get away from the "drill" of the interview for a few seconds.

    In class we also discussed common problems in questioning.  Problems listed were Affect worded  questions, Double-barreled questions, Complex questions, and Question sequencing.  Affect worded questions are those which arouse an emotional response in respondents.  I believe it is appropriate to initially word a question in a way that will increase the possibility of an accurate response.  Double-barreled questions are those that have more than one focus.  I think it is better not to use this type of question unless one can validly justify focusing on multiple points at one time.  Complex questions are those which are highly detailed.  I believe that these questions should be avoided if possible.  I would opt for simpler questions so that the respondent doesn't have to put effort into understanding the question.  Question sequencing refers to when the interviewer asks certain types of question.  I think it is better to begin with easier questions and those which are less sensitive.  I believe this is helpful for two reasons.  First, it allows time for the respondent to relax before being "hit" with difficult or hard questions.  Second, it allows for more time to be invested in the interview from the respondent.  This may increase the motivation for the respondent to finish the interview.

    We have been conducting interviews of students on campus during class time.  Originally, I really didn't know what to do other than ask questions.  I was unsure of my ability to get someone to "open up" to me and to be able to get all the information onto paper.  After practicing this process, I remain unsure of my interviewing ability.  I think I will get better with more practice and a greater understanding of the process.  Additionally, I have found that I cannot get all the main points down on paper and continue to pay attention to the respondent.  Therefore, I try to sit down immediately after the interview so that I may remember more of what is said.

    I have been working on the class project for the past several weeks.  I have completed the first set of field notes, written them up, and looked for a specific way of redirecting my focus.  My original question was "What is the SGA all about?"  After finishing my first observation I attempted to narrow my focus but realized that if I do narrow the focus I will be excluding aspects of the meetings that could help answer my original question.  I have taken another set of field notes and am writing them up.  I will then compare the two sets and attempt to get an idea of the functions (or purposes) of the SGA.  During my final observation I will look for information that may support or reject those statements.

    Finally, I have been trying to get together two dissertations which I can compare and contrast.  I found some studies on the web under the heading of Dissertations and Papers but am uncertain if these are papers or dissertations.  I have downloaded ethnographies, case-studies, and a phenomenology.  I have emailed the authors but only have received a response from one which was quite an experience for me.  I emailed a lady about a phenomenology I found on the meaning of participating in technology training.  I asked her if this paper was a dissertation.  She said that it had been but she had changed her topic and turned it into a paper (which was what I had downloaded).  However, she sent me the final copy of the dissertation which, to my surprise, she said she had been working on for John W. Creswell who served on her committee.  We have emailed several times and I thought it was incredible to find someone who had actually worked with (and taken classes under) the author of our text book.

< Back