The art of an interview

I have spent considerable time pondering my latest foray into qualitative study – the interview. My subject was a close friend who happens to be a masters student studying engineering. I chose her because she was willing to be interviewed and I wanted to "slide into the shallow end of the pool" of interview protocol for my first effort instead of "diving into the deep end" (so to say).

I found the interview was a bit difficult. Naturally I tend to be a conversationalist, but I felt stiff during the interview. Certainly this must have affected by subject. How could it not? I have subsequently spent time asking myself, "What did I do wrong?" and, "How can I do it all better next time?" 

The answers do not come simply. Each interview seems certain to be as unique as each subject being interviewed. Settings change, moods change, and people change; the dynamics just cannot be replicated with ease. What is a researcher to do? I struggle with manipulating the interview setting too much as I do not want to cause the setting to dramatically alter the outcomes. For this interview we sat down in the participant's home over a cup of coffee. We were in her domain, at her house, sitting at her table. Possibly I was the nervous one. Possibly she was at ease, and her answers flowed from comfort and familiarity. But possibly not. I have no way of knowing.

Next time . . . like my former orchestral conductor said, "Practice makes better!"

Narrative what?!

So I'm finding this narrative approach somewhat difficult. I can't tell if I am burdened by the approach or merely the style. All weekend I have been attempting to "polish off" this project but feel like I keep running into walls. Part of it may be that I was an English major so creative writing is not too difficult for me . . . but is that narrative? Seems too basic for me and "not academic enough" as a lot of my commentary tends to say from the professors. 

Oh well. . . gotta shoot the fish in the barrel I guess and see if I hit any. So here goes -- not my silver bullet mind you!

Creswell 8, Data Analysis and Representation

Summary:

Creswell explores the intricacies of data coding for qualitative research. He presents five approaches to analysis and offers some comparison of the five (narrative research, phenomenological research, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study). 

The use of computer programs which aid in the process of qualitative coding is introduced by Creswell in this chapter. Positive and negative implications of computer coding are discussed as well as a brief introduction to four available programs.

Lastly visual templates of qualitative coding are presented to the reader.

Response:

This chapter provides a cursory overview of qualitative data analysis and representation. In less than 30 pages, the author anticipates a reader should have the ability to begin data analysis of a given study, yet the author admits that most qualitative research is somewhat ad hoc and is learned through involvement (p. 150).

It is my feeling that Creswell is correct that much of qualitative coding is dictated by the study, the information, and the researcher. This is a fancy way of saying each study, while holding some elemental pieces similar to other studies, will be unique.

Despite the reality of my crass assessment in the aforementioned paragraph, there is really no other way for one to learn such methodologies without having them presented. For this task Creswell rises to the occasion and gives a decent quick-and-dirty description. The true learning, however, is likely to occur by actually practicing the coding and having the codes verified by colleagues, professors, or through the use of member checking. 

Drawbacks:

Biggest drawback: How could anyone truly represent this kind of material in one chapter? One might consider an entire book on each approach!

One thing I feel is lacking in this chapter is an emphasis on shortcomings. Creswell does not adequately identify potential shortcomings in the approaches presented within this chapter. Quite possibly each has its unique problems, and no one approach stands as a golden standard among all researchers, however an emphasis on potential problems could be of benefit to the reader. I would the be able to better predict my potential problems and watch for them through the analysis phase of my projects. 

I guess I still remain skeptical of Creswell because he spends so much time citing himself. Thus I remain in my post-Creswellian phase.