Last night I decided to try a different audio editor. I have used ExpressScribe from NCH extensively but was unaware of WavePad. I downloaded the free version and tried noise reduction. This was really good for what I want to do right now. Unfortunately, Audacity is so sophisticated that it is not so quickly navigable. I was able to run my tape through the default settings of noise reduction and make a tremendous and immediate difference in quality. The voices on the tape really 'emerged' after I ran the noise reduction program and I started to hear concepts rather than words. (I think that is probably an issue whenever recording quality problems come up - in trying hard to heard 'words,' which are just pieces, you lose a sense of the larger pieces, the "meaningful units" [Chenail, 2012]).
I realized as I listened to the recording of the class that I missed last week that I did not really talk in this journal about the consent form or the process - which I drafted from Nova's templates. It is similar but not exactly the same as the consent form I have used for Ole Miss, my 'home' university. (I have mentioned to people that sometimes I feel like I am being unfaithful by attending another university at the same time; especially since there are some things I like better about Nova, like the amazing online library and research resources.) There was a parallel in that the CITI (research ethics) training for Nova was similar, though not exactly the same as Ole Miss. One component I do not recall completing for Ole Miss was the part about how your research can potentially 'damage' your participants. I never really considered this before, but once you look at people in an area, take an Indian reservation for instance, and research and report about how bad living conditions are, how poor health outcomes are, etc., you could damage the area's appeal for anyone who wants to move there and you could damage the reputation of people from that area, which might hurt them when looking for a job or applying for a school program. There is, of course, the other side, that you are letting others know about a place that needs help or where conditions could be improved. The 'rez' is not really the best example because it is not a place most people can or do have on their list of possible relocation sites. However, given that the universities in Mississippi tend to do a lot of research in the poorer areas of the state, the potential to 'damage' the reputation of an area through research reporting is quite viable. So I have to think that this portion of CITI, if it is not currently included, probably should be. Back to the consent form - when I read this, either one, I try to think of how I feel as a participant (not 'subject' - I am reading student papers now and making that point over and over!). I have also read some criticism from qualitative researchers regarding the provision of consent to participants. (There is a nice discussion in Weis and Fine: "Speed bumps: A student-friendly guide to qualitative research," Teachers College, 2000.) When interviewing a classmate, which I have done in the past, I think this process is no problem. When I interviewed 16 lifelong active older adults, I gave it to many via email and that was no problem (I sent it well in advance of the interview). However, when you hand the letter to someone - there is a sense that you are objectifying them or 'subjectizing' them. From my own experience, I tend to ask questions and I have found that researchers (I have only participated in student research and almost exclusively surveys) become very uncomfortable, especially if you approach things as a fellow researcher. It is sort of like what might happen if the rats in a lab started asking questions - the researchers seem to just want you to be an attentive but mindless 'subject' - far away from the concept of co-researcher. The really brilliant but sadly gone Douglas Adams touched on this idea in one of the "Hitchhikers' guide to the galaxy books" (maybe even the first one). The joke, which I can in no way repeat in as clever of a way as Adams wrote it, is that researchers think they are doing experiments on rats when actually the rats are going through the motions to watch the reactions of the "researchers." In a later post, I am going to talk a little more about how this particular consent process worked. Also coming soon is a peek into the history of "Qualitative Ninja Girl," I am working on a
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
|