Phenomenological interview limitations may appear due to the researcher’s lack of experience in conducting interviews (Downey, 2015); which may interfere with the researcher’s focus and intentionality (Ashworth, 2017). Limitations may occur with the relationship between the researcher and the interviewee, including power struggles which might affect trust and honest participant reflections (Boucher, 2017). Further, time limitations could impede upon a participants deliberation process during the interview process (Downey, 2015). If a researcher is to understand the essence of a phenomenon; a suspension of judgment is required during participant interviews (Ashworth, 2017). Additionally, the researcher will need to be extremely attentive to experience the study through the participants’ eyes (Kelley, 2016). Individuals may choose not to answer every question, which is acceptable; yet, missing data can also become a limitation to the study. However, if enough participants do not answer the same question, the question might need to be reframed or removed; additionally, secondary data, such as technical reports, white papers or additional publications might be necessary to validate the research question (Johnston, 2014).
Qualitative research reflects different ways that researcher’s collect data and explore all of the information through literature review. Participant’s that are reviewing is often observed for analysis while “the role of the researcher focuses as the primary data collection instrument necessitates the identification of personal values, assumptions and biases at the outset of the study; Qualitative researchers ask at least one central question” (Creswell, 2014, which can be explored in several contexts with further questions. According to the text Research Design (2014) “the researcher’s role is typically involved in a
The interviews were conducted over a two-week period in Term 4 of the NSW school year. Interviews took place at the participating institution branches, in a designated room as discussed with the administrators. Each participant was invited to an individual interview, which took approximately 15 minutes, dependent upon the participant’s level of participation and the time constraints. Throughout each interview, the conversation between the interviewer (i.e., the author) and the interviewee (i.e., a participant) were audio recorded to facilitate
Qualitative approach to Critical Discourse Analysis requires the acknowledgement of biases, assumptions and personality that may interfere with the research. Critical Discourse Analysis does not require the researcher to interpret the participant’s experience. Critical Discourse Analysis required the researcher to interpret data by having links or share pattern between the items under research. Reflexivity is design to prevent the research from manipulating the data to agree with is his or her preconceived notions. The four type of Reflexivity are Personal, interpersonal, methodological and contextual (Creswell, & Creswell’ 2007) Personal reflexivity is the acknowledgment of the researcher feelings about the subject. Interpersonal reflexivity is the relationship the researcher shared with the research. Methodological reflexivity is the ability to accept the outcome
Ian Bogost investigated how games could teach particular procedures and practical systems to players. But Julian Dibbel’s investigation in “Tijuana” revealed how players could transform procedures into self-serving, manipulative machines. Profiteering is likely not the lesson Bogost—or Epistemic Games for that matter—hoped to teach players. But what is the difference between Epistemic Games transferring players’ power into solutions to real-life problems and Blacksnow transferring power into real-life profit? Simply stated, it is the players’ motivation. More complexly stated, a game like Candy Crush commits no moral error by placing players into a work-based system of economic growth.
Tijuana has ignored the problem because of an international border conflict and has dumped the issue on California to resolve it. Theres an absence of sewage lines and running water in Tijuana.; leaving much of untreated waste to flow into the river. For example, My brother traveled down to Tijuana last month and stayed with a family friend. My brothers experience left him shocked, with disbelief. This family gathers water from the river using buckets and heats it up with a probe to kill harmful bacteria. This is a present issue for many who live in the region. Justin, my brother had to use this water to go to the bathroom, and every other daily necessity. Justin was disgusted to know the same water he was using to wash down waste, he would
I decided to interview one of my close friends, Annalis Belperio. I chose her because I come from a very different home and grew up in different ways than she did. I saw this as seeing people’s lives and how everyone has a different life, although people may seem the same/act the same, we’re all different in our own way. Before I proceeded to interview her, I put together what questions I was going to ask her. I wanted to make them personal, but not ones that seemed intrusive or over the line. I then chose what questions were perfect for this interview.
Rubin’s piece on qualitative interviewing presents ideas that have not been mentioned in the reading above; this conversation brings forth the idea of cultural connotations as well as the belief that the interviewer is not an objective member in the process but rather an active participant. While Cribb and Berger delve into the methods of proper interviewing they miss an essential first step; understanding the possibility of diverse meanings attached to words. Rubin specifies that before the interviewing process begins the two involved (interviewer and interviewee) must come to a shared meaning of the words to be used in the interview in order to prevent confusion among the parties. Berger and Cribb assume that throughout their conversation the interviewee will not encounter a word or phrase that holds different meaning to the researcher, however as Rubin discusses this is not the case. Due to the vast amount of diverse cultures in the world, the chance of approaching a word that holds a separate meaning to the two parties is highly likely and will affect the outcome of the
The proposed methodology is a primary qualitative approach of semi-structured interviews. This method has been chosen as the focus of this
Reflexivity is generally perceived as an extrinsic process in qualitative research where the researcher continuously reflects on how their
Fort Morgan is a melting pot of different cultures and we as the students are at the center of it all. We interviewed an African refugee a while back and it gave us a lot of insight about how they came and how they are living in the community. But we came to question another group of immigrants, a group right under our noses. We interviewed Mexican immigrants. My group interviewed Mariana, a junior of Fort Morgan high school and an immigrant from Mexico. After the interview we were asked to compare the interviewee and some one in our lives that had also immigrated to the U.S..
In the research proposal by Green et al. (2015), the researchers included four Southern Cross University students from the unit “Doing Social Research”. Further, the researchers conducted eight 15 minute interview that were audio recorded and transcribed. The qualitative research was based on a thematic analysis of the data collected (Bouma & Ling 2004; Braun & Clarke, 2006). The four researchers were digitally assigned an information sheet with an introduction and seven open-ended questions, although some researchers asked unscripted questions. Due to ethical factors, each interviewee was a voluntary participant and either a family member or a friend of the researcher (Bouma, G & Ling, R 2004). Participants were selected on the “basis of select criteria” (Bouma, G & Ling, R 2004) and the procedure is called, “accidental quota sampling” (p. 116). The criterion for interviewees included membership of the SNS Facebook and participant’s age was an independent variable. Each researcher selected one female and one male, of which one was 16-25 years and the other was 60 years and over. Participant’s consent for the interview was attained by a signed consent form approved by Dr Cathy Byrne (tutor). The interviewee’s responses are confidential, anonymous and transcripts are accessed by tutors (Bouma, G & Ling, R 2004, pp. 188-198). This focused research article is derived from the group research proposal by Green et al. (2015).
Qualitative research is good at simplifying and managing data without destroying complexity and context. Qualitative methods are highly appropriate for questions where preemptive reduction of the data will prevent discovery. If the purpose is to learn from the participants in a setting or a process the way they experience it, the meanings they put on it, and how they interpret what they experience, the researcher needs methods that will allow for discovery and do justice to their perceptions and the complexity of their interpretations. Qualitative methods have in common the goal of generating new ways of seeing existing data. If the purpose is to construct a theory or a theoretical framework that reflects reality rather than the researchers own perspective or prior research results, one may need methods that assist the discovery of theory in data. If the purpose is to understand phenomena deeply and in detail, the researcher needs methods for discovery of central themes and analysis of core concerns. Each of these suggestions has a flip side. If one knows what is being hypothesized and what they are likely to find, if one do not need to know the complexity of others’ understandings, if one is testing prior theory rather than constructing new frameworks, or if one is simply describing a situation rather than deeply analyzing it, it is possible that one should not be working qualitatively. Perhaps the research question that one is tackling with in-depth interviews would be
From my past interviews, I have learned that carrying qualitative research with the approach of informal conversations is the most helpful method. This worked perfectly for me because apart from my questions on topic of interest I relied on most of participant’s responses as the interaction drove me towards asking many follow-up questions. Also I observed my participant felt comfortable with informal interaction. For example, for the question “What kind of motivation did you get from your family side?” She comfortably shared the bad personal experiences she had with her husband like the idea of getting divorce.