Aack! So, first I found out that my institution believes I need an IRB for pretty much everything I am doing this semester that involves talking to students. Nothing I can't handle, except that as part of the IRB proposal I need to submit my protocols for the interviews. Ahem.
I didn't actually have a protocol ready for my HED 742 project, but thought it wouldn't be very difficult to pull one together. Wrong! There are a million ways to ask any question, and the answers will be just as varied depending on which way the question is posed. I am beginning to see what an art it is to form a question that allows for a full response, and that does not tip my hand by telling the participant exactly what I am hoping to hear. That said, it is also quite difficult to make a "generic" sort of open ended question interesting enough to ellicit a rich response.
I also see how much reading I need to do in order to be informed enough to know what to expect in the way of responses and what to ask that will help the students to understand, not what I want them to say, but sort of how I want them to think around the topics we will be exploring. But I want my reading to inform and not dictate to my study, if that makes sense. How do I read without coming to conclusions that may not apply to my study population, and yet still read enough to create thoughtful, nuanced questions?!
I am also concerned that I might not get enough data to really shore up a grounded theory. At what point is it acceptable to change from one methodology to another? Might I get enough data for a phenomenology rather than a grounded theory? When will I know? How late into the game can I make a shift if it looks like it is necessary?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment