DQ QUESTION week 6-2

Coding Scholar of Change Video #2

In Week 5, you selected one of the Scholars of Change videos to begin the coding process. For this Discussion, you will select another Scholars of Change video, different than the one you selected in Week 5, to begin coding not only your field notes but also the transcript of the video you downloaded.

To prepare for this Discussion:

Review the chapters in the Saldaña text.

Review the Introduction to Coding and From Content to Coding media programs in the Learning Resources.

Refer back to your observational field notes from Weeks 1–4 Scholars of Change videos.

From the remaining videos, choose a different Scholars of Change video and refer to your notes from your observation for this Discussion.

Access the transcript you downloaded for the media program of the Scholars of Change video you selected for this Discussion.

Begin to code the transcript and the observational field notes of the Scholar of Change video you chose. (Note: You will only need one or two codes for this Discussion, although more are acceptable.)

Post a brief description of the video you chose. Next, include an example of one or two codes and provide quotes from your notes or transcript to support your example. Finally, explain your reasoning for this coding.

Be sure to support your main post and response post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA style.

1 Article A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, PhD Sam Houston State University Huntsville, Texas Wendy B. Dickinson, PhD Ringling College of Art and Design City, State Nancy L. Leech, PhD University of Colorado Denver Annmarie G. Zoran, PhD Higher Education Centre Novo mesto and University of South Florida © 2009 Onwuegbuzie. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Despite the abundance of published material on conducting focus groups, scant specific information exists on how to analyze focus group data in social science research. Thus, the authors provide a new qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data. First, they identify types of data that can be collected during focus groups. Second, they identify the qualitative data analysis techniques best suited for analyzing these data. Third, they introduce what they term as a micro-interlocutor analysis, wherein meticulous information about which participant responds to each question, the order in which each participant responds, response characteristics, the nonverbal communication used, and the like is collected, analyzed, and interpreted. They conceptualize how conversation analysis offers great potential for analyzing focus group data. They believe that their framework goes far beyond analyzing only the verbal communication of focus group participants, thereby increasing the rigor of focus group analyses in social science research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3) 2 Keywords: focus group, focus group analysis, micro-interlocutor analysis, conversation analysis Authors’ note: Correspondence should be addressed to Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Box 2119, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX 77341-2119, or e-mail tonyonwuegbuzie@aol.com. Traditionally, focus group research is “a way of collecting qualitative data, which—essentially— involves engaging a small number of people in an informal group discussion (or discussions), ‘focused’ around a particular topic or set of issues” (Wilkinson, 2004, p. 177). Social science researchers in general and qualitative researchers in particular often rely on focus groups to collect data from multiple individuals simultaneously. Focus groups are less threatening to many research participants, and this environment is helpful for participants to discuss perceptions, ideas, opinions, and thoughts (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Researchers have used focus groups for decades (Morgan, 1998), indeed for the past 80 years. In the 1920s, they were conducted to assist researchers in identifying survey questions (Morgan, 1998). In the early 1940s, Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton, who are credited with formalizing the method of focus groups (Madriz, 2000), used focus group methods to conduct a government-sponsored study to examine media effects on attitudes towards the involvement of the United States in World War II (Merton, 1987). These groundbreaking methodologists used focus group data to identify “salient dimensions of complex social stimuli as [a] precursor to further quantitative tests” (Lunt, 1996, p. 81). Moreover, according to Kamberelis and Dimitriadis (2005), Two dimensions of Lazarsfeld and Merton’s research efforts constitute part of the legacy of using focus groups within qualitative research: (a) capturing people’s responses in real space and time in the context of face-to-face interactions and (b) strategically ‘focusing’ interview prompts based on themes that are generated in these face-to-face interactions and that are considered particularly important to the researchers. (p. 899) Later, according to Greenbaum (1998), focus group data were collected and analyzed mainly for market researchers to assess consumers’ attitudes and opinions. In the past 20 years, focus group research has been used to collect qualitative data by social science researchers (Madriz, 2000). Furthermore, in the past years, books on the use and benefits of focus groups have emerged (Krueger, 1988; Morgan, 1988). Social science researchers can derive multiple benefits from using focus groups. One is that focus groups are an economical, fast, and efficient method for obtaining data from multiple participants (Krueger & Casey, 2000), thereby potentially increasing the overall number of participants in a given qualitative study (Krueger, 2000). Another advantage to focus groups is the environment, which is socially oriented (Krueger, 2000). In addition, the sense of belonging to a group can increase the participants’ sense of cohesiveness (Peters, 1993) and help them to feel safe to share information (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996). Furthermore, the interactions that occur among the participants can yield important data (Morgan, 1988), can create the possibility for more spontaneous responses (Butler, 1996), and can provide a setting where the participants can discuss personal problems and provide possible solutions (Duggleby, 2005). International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3) 3 Literature abounds regarding how to design a focus group, how to select focus group participants, and how to conduct the focus group session group (e.g., appropriate focus group interview questions, length of focus group interviews, keeping focus group participants on task) (e.g., Krueger, 1988, 1994, 2000; Morgan, 1997). In a few articles published in health-related journals, authors (i.e., Carey, 1995; Carey & Smith, 1994; Duggleby, 2005; Kidd & Parshall, 2000; Morrison-Beedy, Cote-Arsenault, & Feinstein, 2001; Stevens, 1996; Wilkinson, 1998) have discussed issues related to the analysis of focus group data. However, there is very little specific information regarding how to analyze focus group data (Nelson & Frontczak, 1988; Vaughn et al., 1996; Wilkinson, 1999, 2004) or what types of analyses would be helpful with focus group data (Carey, 1995; Duggleby, 2005; Wilkinson, 2004). Consistent with this assertion, Wilkinson (2004) concluded: As indicated, compared with the extensive advice on how to conduct focus groups, there is relatively little in the focus group literature on how to analyze the resulting data. Data analysis sections of focus group ‘handbooks’ are typically very brief….In published focus group studies, researchers often omit, or briefly gloss over, the details of exactly how they conducted their analyses. (p. 182, emphasis in original) With this in mind, in the present article we provide a new qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data in social science research. First, we delineate multiple avenues for collecting focus group data. Second, using the works of Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007, 2008), we outline multiple methods of analyzing focus group data using qualitative data analyses. Third, we introduce a new way of analyzing focus group data, what we term micro-interlocutor analysis, which incorporates and analyzes information from the focus group by delineating which participants respond to each question, the order of responses, and the nature of the responses (e.g., non sequitur, rambling, focused) as well as the nonverbal communication used by each of the focus group participants. In particular, we conceptualize how conversation analysis offers much potential for analyzing focus group data. We contend that our framework represents a more rigorous method of both collecting and analyzing focus group data in social science research. The Planning and Organization of the Focus Group The research question and research design ultimately guide how the focus group is constructed. Well-designed focus groups usually last between 1 and 2 hours (Morgan, 1997; Vaughn et al., 1996) and consist of between 6 and 12 participants (Baumgartner, Strong, & Hensley, 2002; Bernard, 1995; Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Krueger, 1988, 1994, 2000; Langford, Schoenfeld, & Izzo, 2002; Morgan, 1997; Onwuegbuzie, Jiao, & Bostick, 2004). The rationale for this range of focus group size stems from the goal that focus groups should include enough participants to yield diversity in information provided, yet they should not include too many participants because large groups can create an environment where participants do not feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and experiences. Krueger (1994) has endorsed the use of very small focus groups, what he terms “mini-focus groups” (p. 17), which include 3 (Morgan, 1997) or 4 (Krueger, 1994) participants, when participants have specialized knowledge and/or experiences to discuss in the group. Because participants might not be available on the day of the focus group, Morgan (1997) has suggested overrecruiting by at least 20% of the total number of participants required, and Wilkinson (2004) suggested an overrecruitment rate of 50%. The number of times a focus group meets can vary from a single meeting to multiple meetings. Likewise, the number of different focus groups can vary. However, using multiple focus groups allows the focus group researcher to assess the extent to which saturation (cf. Flick, 1998; International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3) 4 Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Morse, 1995; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) has been reached, whether data saturation (i.e., occurring when information occurs so repeatedly that the researcher can anticipate it and whereby the collection of more data appears to have no additional interpretive worth; Sandelowski, 2008; Saumure & Given, 2008) or theoretical saturation (i.e., occurring when the researcher can assume that her/his emergent theory is adequately developed to fit any future data collected; Sandelowski, 2008). Focus groups can be formed by using preexisting groups (e.g., colleagues at a place of work). Alternatively, these groups can represent newly formed groups that the researcher constructs by selecting members either randomly or, much more commonly, via one of the 19 or more purposive sampling techniques (e.g., homogeneous sampling, maximum variation sampling, critical case sampling, or multistage purposeful sampling; Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). Krueger (1994) and Morgan (1997) have suggested that three to six different focus groups are adequate to reach data saturation and/or theoretical saturation, with each group meeting once or multiple times. Krueger (1994) suggested that it is ideal for the focus group to have a moderator team. This team typically comprises a moderator and an assistant moderator. The moderator is responsible for facilitating the discussion, prompting members to speak, requesting overly talkative members to let others talk, and encouraging all the members to participate. Furthermore, the moderator is responsible for taking notes that inform potential emergent questions to ask. In most cases, the moderator presents the focus group participants with a series of questions. However, instead, the moderator might present the members with stimulus material (e.g., newspaper article, video clip, audio clip) and ask them to respond to it. Alternatively still, the moderator might ask the members to engage in a specific activity (e.g., team-building exercise, brainstorming exercise) and then provide reactions to it. In contrast, the assistant moderator’s responsibilities include recording the session (i.e., whether by audio- or videotape), taking notes, creating an environment that is conducive for group discussion (e.g., dealing with latecomers, being sure everyone has a seat, arranging for refreshments), providing verification of data, and helping the researcher/moderator to analyze and/or interpret the focus group data (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Sources of Focus Group Data There are many sources of focus group data, yet most researchers use only the actual text (i.e., what each of the participants stated during the focus group) in their analyses. Multiple types of data can be collected during a focus group, including audiotapes of the participants from the focus groups, notes taken by the moderator and assistant moderator, and items recalled by the moderator and assistant moderator (Kruger, 1994). All of these data can be analyzed, yet they differ in the amount of time and rigor it will take to complete the analysis. Transcript-based analysis represents the most rigorous and time-intensive mode of analyzing data. This mode includes the transcription of videotapes and/or audiotapes, which, according to Krueger (1994), commonly will result in 50 to 70 pages of text per focus group meeting. These transcribed data can then be analyzed alongside field notes constructed by the moderator and assistant moderator and any notes extracted from the debriefing of one or more members of the debriefing team. Another mode for analyzing data from a focus group is tape-based analysis, wherein the researcher listens to the tape of the focus group and then creates an abridged transcript. This transcript is usually much shorter than is the full transcript in a transcript-based analysis. Notwithstanding, this type of analysis is helpful because the researcher can focus on the research question and only transcribe the portions that assist in better understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Note-based analysis includes analysis of notes from the focus group, the debriefing session, and any summary comments from the moderator or assistant moderator. Although the focus group is audiotaped and/or videotaped, the tape is used primarily to verify International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3) 5 quotations of interest to the researcher, although the tape can be used at a later date to glean more information. Finally, a memory-based analysis is the least rigorous because it involves the moderator recalling the events of the focus group and presenting these to the stakeholders. Unless the focus group researcher/moderator is experienced, we recommend that transcript-based analyses be used. Focus group data can arise from one of the following three types: individual data, group data, and/or group interaction data (Duggleby, 2005). Focus group theorists disagree as to the most appropriate unit of analysis for focus group data to analyze (i.e., individual, group, or interaction). Some theorists believe that the individual or the group should be the focus of the analysis instead of the unit of analysis (Kidd & Marshall, 2000). However, most focus group researchers use the group as the unit of analysis (Morgan, 1997). By doing so, the researchers code the data and present emergent themes, unfortunately, typically not delineating the type of qualitative analysis used (Wilkinson, 2004). Although these themes can yield important and interesting information, analyzing and interpreting only the text can be extremely problematic. In particular, only presenting and interpreting the emergent themes provides no information about the degree of consensus and dissent, resulting in dissenters effectively being censored or marginalized and preventing the delineation of the voice of negative cases or outliers—what Kitzinger (1994) referred to as argumentative interactions—that can increase the richness of the data (Sim, 1998). More