Feb 6, 2017

Good day!

Unfortunately, I got a pink eye last week. It’s getting better but still have some redness. It’s better to stay at home and take a rest. Hopefully, I can get over it and back to my normal routine soon. However, in the past week, I spent sometimes reading the books about qualitative methods, especially phenomenological analysis.

Overall, those books widen my perspectives about qualitative analysis and they are very useful for what I’m doing right now. It’s like everything just come at the right time when we need to have a direction of what we are doing and phenomenological analysis is the best fit of our research.

“Interviewing as Qualitative Research”   One interesting chapter in this book talks about the structure for in-depth phenomenological interviewing. I think the most influenced notion that I learned from this book is that the method allows us to explore the experiences of participants and the meaning they make of that experience (key point). Ane “we”, as a researcher needs to communicate their meanings, not our meanings. After reading the book I felt like if I want to use this approach, I cannot do as I did before. I cannot code as superficial as thematic analysis. I should have the in-depth understanding of what experiences mean to those participants. However, I’m glad that I have experiences with thematic analysis. It serves as a fundamental for doing a phenomenological analysis. It’s like I have a tool already, just need to change the way that I see things.

If we are going to conduct an interview using this approach, there are rules of thumb of how we could structure the interview and I thought it’s very useful for further study.

  • There are series of interviewing. The in-depth interview might not be efficient in a one-time interview. It might have some restrictions, for example, a time restriction that would not allow a researcher to establish the context of the experience. In this case a researcher might not be able to extract the truly meaning of those experiences. Also, participant restriction, for example, they might not feel good or get sick which might affect the quality of the interview. Thus, having three interviews will help to validify the interview and increase the reliability of the data, also increase the positive relationship between an interviewer and participants. The structure of three interviews is  1) Focused on Life History 2) The details of Experience 3) Reflection on the Meaning.  As I said, the focus of this approach is to extract the meaning of their experiences, we will not be able to get the meaning if we don’t let them set the context of what happened with them. We need to refresh their experiences in the past and make them recall it by asking related questions. We can primarily ask them about him or herself in light of the topic up to present time. Let them talk as much as possible in the first stage. Then in the second interview, we can concentrate on the concrete details of the participants’present lived experiences in the topic area of study. Finally, we can ask the participants to reflect on the meaning of their experiences in the last interview.
  • The proper length of time is 90 mins for each interview.
  • Having space of time to see whether or not the participants have consistent points of view.

Thank you Dr.London for giving me the tools. I really appreciate that you give me an opportunity and wonderful experiences to be a good researcher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s