So after I did not post much for days, I am now up to multiple posts in a 24 hour time period. I have spent a lot of time this a.m. on my transcription (with the goal of being absolutely done today) but I found myself full of thoughts and responses, so I am rewriting my notes from the interview. They were in a two column format - "Event" and "Meaning," and I have added a third for my impression now as I listen and complete the transcription - for the most part this means filling in some blanks and cleaning things up. I am responding to what I hear and using some of what I know - having heard the interview multiple times including the single "live" time and a few listens to the recording - to add to this. I used color coding to help (not sure how much help it is but I happened to have several colored pens at hand). I had a page on the first 'event' alone. I am going to send a copy of this with the transcript to the co-researcher.
I already see missed 'probes' although I need to consider whether or not they stay on topic - which to me was a goal with this interview. There is also a problem in thinking about probes as you listen/write - in that you may focus on one and miss others. I see more sense than ever in Seidman's three interview approach - especially for phenomenology - if it is used to flesh out things and not just to hammer the same thing, or, worse yet, to nudge someone's responses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|