Research Design Overview
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between Lakota perspectives
and experiences with new media and their cultural perceptions. An in-depth, qualitative interview
method was adopted as it allows for deeper insights and perspectives to come to light.
The focus of this study was to proffer up insights from individuals within the Lakota community
on new media and its implications. This study augments existing research by adding a unique
perspective that has not yet been studied in intercultural communications specifically.
The use of qualitative interviews is a well-established approach in intercultural research,
as it ensures that rich and detailed narratives can be collected, providing researchers the
opportunity to explore different experiences and opinions at great length. As noted by
Hammersley and Atkinson, “the expressive power of language provides the most important
resource for accounts. A crucial feature of language is its capacity to present descriptions,
explanations, and evaluations of almost infinite variety about any aspect of the world, including
itself” (1995). Milena et. al came to the same conclusion, asserting that the in-depth interview
offers “an opportunity to gain insight into how people interpret and order the world” (1279).
Rubin & Rubin share that in their experiences, a qualitative, in-depth interview approach “brings
out new information, often of startling candor, and often suggests unanticipated interpretations”
(2012). Qualitative interviews allow multiple (and often varying) perspectives about a given
issue or topic to come to light, so that more nuanced observations can be drawn (Rubin & Rubin,
2012).
Responsive Interview Model
More specifically, the researcher chose to follow the responsive interview model as put
forth by Rubin & Rubin (2012). While there are a lot of similarities between general in-depth
interviews and the responsive interview model, this model has four distinct characteristics (Rubin
& Rubin, 2012, pg. 38).
First, the responsive interview model places a strong emphasis on the significance of
context and richness, while also recognizing that the complexities and nuances of “real life” are
likely to impact findings (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, pg. 38).
Second, responsive interviewing assumes that questioning, and thus, findings, are
impacted by the distinct personalities of the researcher and interviewee. Due in large part to the
two-way, conversational approach responsive interviewing takes, it’s crucial that researchers be
aware of the ways in which their own experiences, cultural understandings, and opinions can
impact what they ask, how they ask it, and how they interpret the responses they receive (Rubin
& Rubin, 2012, pg. 38).
Third, the Responsive Interview Model recognizes that interviews are an exchange that
are brought about in large part due to a relationship of respect between the researcher and
interviewee. When working within the Responsive Interview Model, the researcher makes a
concerted effort to ensure their interviews are conducted in a supportive and nonconfrontational
manner (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, pg. 38).
Fourth, and perhaps most important, is a clear dichotomy between structure and
flexibility—though the researcher has particular topics they’d like to discuss with their
interviewee, they are also flexible enough to allow for the order of the conversation to follow
whatever is best for the subject. By allowing for such an ebb and flow, the researcher becomes a
more responsive listener, asking questions to any of the relevant issues mentioned by the
interviewee, even if they might be “out of order” (Legard et. al, 141). The structure of the
interview is entirely dependent on the responses of the interviewee—after the researcher asks a
question, and hears from their respondent, their next question will most often be determined by
the specifics of the answer they just got (Legard et. al, 141). Often, the first response a
participant gives to a question is somewhat superficial. This necessitates follow up questions
from the researcher, allowing for the interviewer to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the
participant’s viewpoint (Legard et. al, 141).
The responsive interview model also assumes that the opinions, ideas, and views shared
by the participants are true for them, and thus, the researcher is able to enter the interviewee’s
world for the duration of the interview (Rubin & Rubin, 7). Additionally, it can be assumed that
the researcher’s role is two-pronged—first, to gather descriptions, narratives, and interpretations
from a variety of participants and second, to compile these findings in a way that re-creates a
culture, process, or series of events in a way that participants would certify as accurate (Rubin &
Rubin, 7-8).
Approach to Inquiry
The responsive interviewing model also distances itself from the traditional, more
positivist (and postpositivist) structures that exist, instead leaning towards a naturalist paradigm.
While postpositivists presuppose that all data collection is impacted to some extent by
preexisting and unavoidable social and political theories, they are still more absolute in their
conclusions than interpretive constructionists (Willis et al., 2007, p. 73). Interpretive
constructionists fall within the naturalist paradigm, emphasizing the significance of context and
situational complexity. Interpretive constructionist researchers assume that individuals look at
any given issue through distinct lenses and will naturally reach varying conclusions due to these
diverse perspectives. Additionally, researchers working within the interpretive constructionist
paradigm emphasize their own assumptions (particularly within cultural and intercultural
research), making them clear to both themselves and the readers of their work. In this model,
researchers do not need to be neutral, but it is crucial they are aware of their biases and the ways
in which they may influence research (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, pg. 19). Gergen (1999) maintains
that researchers must be able to suspend their own cultural assumptions long enough to recognize
and understand a subject’s own personal assumptions (pg. 50).
This research is shaped by a critical variant of the naturalist paradigm, in that it aims, in
some part, to bring to light societal problems (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). The researcher
selected individuals who identify as Lakota specifically because they are a minority, whose
oppression is frequently ignored. As aforementioned, research (and especially communications
research) centered around Lakota perspectives and experiences is severely lacking, and as such,
this research seeks to, in part, serve as a call to action for more research that gives voice to
groups that are often under and misrepresented. However, it’s important to note that the
researcher does not believe that research should only be conducted to highlight minority groups.
Study Participants
Researcher Description
The researcher worked closely with Dr. Clark Callahan, Professor and Director for
Graduate Studies in the School of Communications at Brigham Young University. Dr. Callahan’s
research centers on theories of intercultural adaption, historical diffusion of innovations, and
media ecology. Dr. Callahan has extensive experience in conducting qualitative in-depth
interviews (see Callahan, 2010; Callahan, 2011; Callahan & Hess, 2012; Johnson & Callahan,
2013; Callahan et. al, 2018; Callahan et. al, 2020) and provided guidance to the researcher as the
methods for this study were developed. Prior understandings of intercultural adaption and
intercultural new media studies aided in enhancing the line of questioning for this study, as well
as structuring data collection and analysis.
Particularly in the case of cultural or intercultural research, Rubin & Rubin suggest that
“show[ing] that you [as the researcher] are willing to accept the culture and want to learn about
it” is the best way to build rapport with participants in a study (pg. 75). There are several ways a
researcher can do this, for example, spending ample time “prior to the interviews learning the
specialized vocabulary of the group you are studying” (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, pg. 75). Take, for
example, William Whyte (1955). Conducting research on a working-class Italian community, he
moved to the town he was researching and even began Italian lessons (Whyte, 1955). Whyte later
stated: “My effort to learn the language…establish[ed] the sincerity of my interest” (Whyte,
1955, pg. 296; Rubin & Rubin, 2012, pg. 75). In an effort to cross the cultural divide, the author
studied Lakota history in depth before conducting any interviews, to ensure that mentions of
specific cultural phenomena or significant cultural events in Lakota history would be understood
and recognized if mentioned. Finally, the researcher met with Ben Rhodd, the historic
preservation officer of the Sicangu Lakota Oyate to discuss Lakota history, terminology, and
culture.
It is important to note that the researcher is not a member of any Lakota tribe and is
neither a representative nor spokesperson for any Lakota tribe or individual.
Participants
Purposeful sampling is one of the most common methods for maximizing the “depth and
richness of the data to address the research question” (Bloom & Crabtree, 2006; Kuzel, 1999). A
subject pool criteria was developed to ensure proper recruitment and selection of study
participants (Johnson & Callahan, 2013). First, the participant needed to identify as Lakota.
Second, the participant had to willing and able to consent to an interview either in-person or over
the phone. While the author planned to investigate media usage among participants, no subjects
were excluded based on their access to and general usage of new media (Johnson & Callahan,
2013). All participants were domestic and had to be able to affirm that they were permanently
located in the United States of America. Participants were not required to be living on a
reservation at the time of interview, nor did they ever need to have lived on a reservation to be
eligible.
Lakota participants were selected for several reasons. First, there is a significant gap in
literature focusing on Lakota people and their media use. A comprehensive search of the EBSCO
(Communications and Mass Media Complete) database for peer-reviewed journals yielded only
19 studies in the last 95 years. Second, despite strong and unavoidable cultural pressures other
groups, many Lakota people have successfully maintained their cultural identity. Third, Lakota
people certainly fit into the definition of a cultural minority group as put forth by
communications researchers today (the author is utilizing the term “minority group” to describe a
“population subgroup with ethnic, racial, social, religious, or other characteristics different from
those of the majority of the population” (APA, 2015a). To reflect a degree of randomness, no
effort was made to prioritize participants based on their current use or non-use of media (Johnson
& Callahan, 2013).
In all, 9 members of the Lakota Nation participated. Of this sample, 2 (22%) identified as
male and 7 (77%) identified as female. All participants were domestic, located permanently in
the United States of America.
Researcher-Participant Relationship
There was not a relationship between the researcher and any participants prior to the start
of this research.
Participant Recruitment
The contact information for potential participants in this study were obtained through a
shared connection of the author, Linda Kramer. Researchers that concentrate on cultural or
intercultural studies often adopt this method of recruiting participants, as it is one of the most
effective ways of establishing rapport with interviewees (see Padilla, 1992; Whyte, 1955;
Liebow, 1967; Duneier, 1999). Linda resides in the Black Hills of South Dakota and has strong
relationships with many of the individuals interviewed over the course of this study. Working
with Linda had multiple benefits, namely, participants felt more eager in participating in the
research, as the mutual connection helped to build trust in the author. The author worked with
Linda to create a recruitment letter for potential participants, which contained a link to a more
detailed introductory letter on the researcher’s website. Prior to commencing the study, ethical
approval was obtained from Brigham Young University’s Institutional Review Board
(10/27/2020). This study did not require an annual continuing review.
Once the contact information for prospective participants was obtained, an email was sent
to interested parties thanking them for their interest, detailing the purpose of the study, providing
them with information on the time commitment that could be expected, and requesting a time
that worked best for an interview to take place.
Participants were not compensated for their participation in this research, however, they
did receive copies of their transcribed interviews for their records.
Data Collection
This data was collected via semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Participants took part in
a Zoom, telephone or in-person interview with the researcher. In-person interviews were
conducted in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Interviews were collected 9 times. On average,
interviews took 70 minutes, with the shortest interview lasting 47 minutes and the longest
interview lasting 134 minutes. All interviews were recorded, with the express permission of the
interviewee. Multiple recording devices were utilized to ensure redundancies were in place. The
researcher also took handwritten notes during interviews, in an effort to clarify any muddled
passages once the transcription process began. Audio files were stored on the researcher’s
computer and, additionally, cloud-based storage, with access to both being password-protected.
At the completion of an interview, the researcher transcribed the recording, referencing interview
notes in any cases of uncertainty. The researcher had previous training and experience in
interview transcription. At the completion of each transcription, interviews were sent to
participants to review for mistakes or ambiguities in need of clarification These transcriptions
were utilized in the creation of the discussion & conclusion sections of this study.
For each interview, the researcher referenced a set list of open-ended interview questions
to allow for a more holistic and comprehensive perspective. Open-ended interview questions also
allow for more diversity in the data then would be available with a closed-question approach
(Allen, 2017). Utilizing interview questions ensured that the researcher was able to gather all
necessary data while also remaining responsive and engaged with participants. It is important to
note that because these were semi-structured interviews, the researcher did ask follow up
questions when opportunities presented themselves for further lines of questioning. These
questions were created to shed light on personal experiences with the following media areas, and
these areas of focus were derived from a study conducted by Johnson & Callahan (2013):
1. What types of media are the most important to Lakota individuals,
2. Whether or not the participants had access to and used the indicated types of media,
3. The ways in which various types of media were used—particularly social media,
4. The ways in which Lakota individuals used media to maintain ties with friends and
families across large distances,
5. The ways in which Lakota individuals used media to maintain ties with friends and
families nearby,
