Hoskin would visit nearly a dozen different Canadian homes, moving about Ontario and Quebec before arriving in the "more cultured, more civilised" Vancouver. He became a Canadian citizen and continued to create books, each one more absurd than the last. Rampa allegedly flew as an air ambulance pilot in World War II, evaded capture and torture, and fled a prison camp near Hiroshima on the day the bomb was dropped. In Vancouver, Hoskin stayed in a West End hotel. According to his secretary's self-published memoir, he liked the waterfront vistas but found Vancouver difficult to navigate. He couldn't recreate The Third Eye's success; it had been difficult to find a home that could accommodate his cats, and health difficulties required the use of a wheelchair in an inhospitable metropolis. Hoskin became more reclusive as his writings expanded to include aliens, prophecies about future conflicts, and previously unreported escapades of Christ. Hoskin moved again, this ti...
Interviews and focus group discussions are the main source of data for case studies (Yin, 2014). Sensemaking becomes an important element in qualitative data collection (Dana, Dawes, & Peterson, 2013), that leads to the process of constructing social reality (Marshall, 2014). I used semistructured interviews to keep the discussions in line during the data collection process, while through focus group discussions I captured the meanings and values based on participant perspectives and experiences. concerning the topic discussed. Semistructured interviews and focus group interviews are primary tools for data collection (Draper & Swift, 2011). I am part of the environment of the study; therefore, I am the primary instrument of data collection as noted by Marshall and Rossman (2015). The environmental knowledge, cultural understanding, and in-depth knowledge of the problem increased the quality of observation (Xu & Storr, 2012).
Data Collection Instruments
Subsequent probing questions in seeking clarity for misconceptions or out of context notions enhanced the validation process (Pezalla, Pettigrew, & Miller-Day, 2012). Dibley (2011) described how the researcher’s personal lens could influence how one views the data. I used an interview protocol to mitigate different challenges of framing interview questions (Honan, 2014). I deployed a protocol focused on getting responses specific to the research problem through a framework of guiding questions (see Appendix E) and guided the interviews by a protocol; the participants express their views freely within the defined scope. A process of probing and follow-up questions allowed flexibility, while keeping control of the proceedings as recommended by Pezalla et al. (2012). I audio recorded the interviews and transcribed the recorded audio files manually. Through the member checking process I presented the transcribed data to the respondents individually to seek the concurrence of accuracy as a process of enhancing reliability and validity as discussed by Awad (2014), Harper and Cole (2012), and Yin (2014) and to ensure that I captured the meaning of what was said. Journaling is an important process in case studies to collect data, as interviews are the primary data collection techniques used in qualitative studies (Arseven, 2014).
Data Collection Technique
I conducted semistructured, on-site face-to-face interviews in three stages to manage the time and content validation. The interviews were voice recorded with the prior consent of the participants. The voice recording took place through an android mobile device and stored in a micro removable disc for transferring the date to a Windows-based computer for transcribing. The consolidated interpretations of the interviews, reflective journal notes, documents, and artifacts were all member checked before adopting for analysis as described by Harper and Cole (2012). The emerging themes, critical decisions, and related outcomes formed the basis for the focus group interview. I find reflexive journaling to be very important to qualitative research. Journaling is a reflective process; one writes down everything seen and heard and then, once away from the research site, reflects on that information to identify themes and patterns from the observations (Snyder, 2012). Through the process of journaling, I listened, remained engaged, suspended judgment, and probed to capture the information effectively as described by Draper and Swift (2010). Qualitative researchers collect data using techniques of interviews, observations, and document analysis (Arseven, 2014; Dana et al., 2013; Yin, 2014). Interviewing of participants was the primary tool of data collection for this study as interviews were effective in eliciting the data for answering the research questions in qualitative studies as discussed by Arseven (2014) and Draper and Swift (2011). The structure of the interviews was determined by the number of participants and the way they are administered (Doody & Noonan, 2013; Draper & Swift, 2011), while journaling keeps track of important information and creative ideas (Atkinson et al., 2012).
Given the limited number of participants and the objective of seeking answers to a specific research question through multiple case studies
the interview structure demands control and flexibility (Dana et al., 2013; Draper & Swift, 2011). Semistructured interviews provide the necessary flexibility of structuring, phasing, and placing the interview to seek the answers to the research questions while controlling the questions and proceedings to keep the discussion in line (Dana et al., 2013; Draper & Swift, 2011). Semistructured face-to- face interviews (see Appendix E) were conducted as the primary data collection technique (Dana et al., 2013; Doody & Noonan, 2013; Draper & Swift, 2011), while journaling, document analysis, and discussion regarding the observation of artifacts was used as the supporting process for the primary data (Arseven, 2014; Atkinson et al., 2012; Yin, 2014). Further, I used fully structured focus-group interviews as data collection techniques for methodologically triangulating the findings (Dilshad & Latif, 2013). Face-to-face interviews, focus group interviews, and observation of artifacts have challenges and limitations (Dilshad & Latif, 2013; Draper & Swift, 2011; Parry et al., 2014; Sommers et al., 2013). In face-to-face interviews, participants may respond what is socially desirable, while the researcher’s ability to listen, remain engaged, suspend
Comments
Post a Comment