Week 7 adv workshop
jamiahr23
week7responses.docxWeek 7 responses
Matthew Talbot
Outline your proposed interview procedures, providing justification of each procedure included in your list. Be sure to consider and share your plan for the following:
Who are you considering interviewing?
The sample population will include parents who currently have at least one child enrolled in a K-12 public, private, or charter school. To comply with the IRB course-based data collection procedures, only acquaintances or family members known to this writer will be considered as the two required participants for this project. To optimize the randomness of a purposive sample, this writer has used a social media to recruit those who qualify and those who express interest in participation. This permits sampling across most contingent US States, increases the potential for generalizability, and does not intentionally seek individuals who fall under the category of ‘protected populations.’ Informed consent shall be detailed in the recruiting post and discussed further with the individual participants who agree and are chosen for the assignment. This permits multiple opportunities to transparently discuss the purpose of the project/research and address any questions or concerns preemptively.
Incorporation of the exact verbiage provided by the IRB’s Office of Research and Compliance
Participants will be emailed the following consent form in accordance with IRB Office of Research and Compliance.
(I HAVE INCLUDED SOME EDITS BECAUSE OF THE OPTION THIS COURSE APPEARS TO PERMIT IN OFFERING E-MAIL BASED INTERVIEWS – THE IRB PROVIDED FORMAT WAS FOR AUDIO-BASED ONLY):
Hello,
You are invited to take part in an interview for a research course that I am completing as part of my forensic psychology doctoral program. The purpose of the interview is to help me hone my interviewing and data analysis skills.
Interview Procedures:
I am requesting that you permit me to conduct an email-based interview that should take no more than 30 minutes to complete. Your written responses will be analyzed as part of my course.
Voluntary Nature of the Interview:
This interview is voluntary. If you decide to take part now, you can still change your mind later.
Risks and Benefits of Being Interviewed:
Being in this interview would not pose any risks beyond those of typical daily life. There is no benefit to you.
Privacy:
Your responses will be shared with my university faculty along with my analysis. The responses will be destroyed as soon as I have completed my course.
Contacts and Questions:
If you want to talk privately about your rights as an interviewee, you can call Dr. Leilani Endicott. She is the Walden University representative who can discuss this with you. Her phone number is 612-312-1210.
Please share any questions or concerns you might have at this time. If you agree to be interviewed as described above, please reply to this email with the words, “I consent.”
Thank you.
The revised interview guide, which now includes the invitation, informed consent, introductory statement, the interview, and a concluding/closing statement
In which format to conduct the interview (e-mail, phone, or in person), with a justification for your choice and inclusion of appropriate sources (referring to articles)
For this study, participants would ultimately be invited to participate, and sent an interview questionnaire upon providing informed consent, via e-mail communications. Given this study seeks to understand perception of personality, behavioral, social, and other traits of mass shooters, it is most important to identify what participants already know, believe, and perceive without any probing or potentially leading inquiries. Since this research is less about trying to understand a participant experience, where a face-to-face interview may be more beneficial, an email-based approach appears both sufficient and appropriate.
Email approaches to data gathering have proven beneficial to qualitative studies for multiple reasons. Meho (2006) indicates that the benefits of email interviews include the fact they tend to be far more economical than face to face interviews, multiple participants across broad geographic areas can be included easily, cost and time of transcribing responses is reduced, and the need for synchronous interview times is eliminated. This also obliges the busy schedules most people balance, particularly parents who represent the sample population and have numerous obligations that might make finding 60-90 minutes of time for a phone interview challenging. This time may be even greater for face-to-face interviews given the added time for commuting to an agreed upon location (unless facilitated by virtual means, i.e., Zoom). This approach is also more economical for participants, parents of children, who, in some circumstances, may need to consider childcare or the like to free up time to participate. Consider the working parent who leaves work to pick up their child at school and care for them accordingly each day. Many parents find it challenging to find any additional time in the day beyond day-to-day responsibilities so the added burden, if you will, may reduce the likelihood of participation.
Choosing and coordinating a peer debrief with one of your classmates, which can be by phone (preferably) or e-mail and will occur after you have collected your data
I have coordinated a peer debrief for post-interviews with a member of another Advanced Qual section who lives locally and who is well versed in the topic area of my research. I have obtained approval from professors across classes to engage with this individual in an alternate section and I will offer the same for him in return.
Shannon Edmonds
The sample for my study will consist of Forensic Psychologists who are well versed in Fitness for Duty evaluations and conduct them regularly for Law Enforcement agencies, for this course this sample will be composed of my family members and friends. Participants will be excluded from this study if they are Forensic Psychologists who do not conduct Fitness for Duty evaluations and if they are not in the field of Forensic Psychology. Forensic Psychologists live in different parts of the country and have different evaluative roles, the best way to make sure that I have the sample of this population is to network and see who knows who is in the same field that conducts these examinations. I would need to make sure that the method of interviewing is not only convenient but also allow the sample of between 12-15 participants that are needed for saturation. For this mock study, I will be using a sample of my friends and family but keep the challenges of working with the actual sample in mind (Guest et al, 2006; Mason, 2010). The interview will be implemented using email, which would allow for reaching out to respondents across the country without having to go to different regions for face-to-face interviews and save money. This method will also have recorded answers that I can refer to and follow up if more information is needed or the answer is unclear. Using emails also allows for the respondent to give what would be considered socially undesirable answers; however, it may lead to shorter responses as the respondent may have time to reflect on the question. Although this is considered a weakness of this tool, it would benefit the purpose of my study. By giving time to the respondent to sit and reflect on ethics and solutions would give my study the careful consideration to conceivable solutions that it is searching for based on my theoretical framework. Plus, the respondent can reply to the email when convenient where answers can be more thoughtful due to lack of distractions or background noise, giving the interview full attention. To avoid the respondent from forgetting about the interview or its timeline, I would send follow-up emails to give gentle reminders or to seek if any further information is needed from me (Opdenakker, 2006). The invitation, informed consent, and debriefing will be delivered in this manner.
Setting Up the Invitation, Informed Consent, and Debriefing
Each participant will receive an individual email invitation, informed consent, and debriefing rather than using a group email chain. Sending out emails individually not only helps maintain confidentiality but also shows the participants that their individual input is important. The invitation will be crafted using the template provided in the resources for week seven, replacing it with my information where needed. The invitation should include a self-disclosure, interview request, and research purpose (Meho, 2006). Each university has an IRB that has its own standards for procedures, requirements, and application forms that often exceed federal standards. The informed consent will be written using the IRB outline provided online, making sure that I incorporate research purpose, volition, benefits and risk, confidentiality, and contact information based on the verbiage the IRB used (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Upon receiving the informed consent, I would email the research questions along with the instructions for completion and the deadline for submission (Meho, 2006). These two documents will be at the beginning of my interview guide. I will be working with a cohort next week to create the debriefing, based on Spall (1998) the use of peer debriefing yields credibility to the study, further develops a professional identity, and provide diverse strategies. I would also want to utilize debriefing to curtail bias. The debriefing will be included in the interview guide at the end.
References
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Mark Mason. (2010). Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3).
Meho, L. I. (2006). E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(10), 1284–1295. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1002/asi.20416
Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4) Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fadvantages-disadvantages-four-interview%2Fdocview%2F869232974%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D14872 .
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: emerging operational models. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 280+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A20778155/EAIM?u=minn4020&sid=bookmark-EAIM&xid=216809db
