This article by Buchanan, Boddy, and McCalman (1988) provided a behind-the-scenes perspective of how they go about carrying out their qualitative research, elaborating on the painstaking process of research (in particular, data collection) that is not well-understood by the general public. The most important message that I got after reading this article is that when embarking on a qualitative research project, it is important that the researcher remains flexible, reflective, and open-minded throughout the research process.
Drawing on their experience in conducting fieldwork in organisations, Buchanan et al. (1988) proposed a four-stage process in which researchers go through when trying to gain access to organisations for data collection purposes. The four stages are: (1) getting in, (2) getting on, (3) getting out, and (4) getting back. To summarise, at the "getting in" stage, researchers are expected to be clear about their objectives, time, and resources, and with those in mind, negotiate their way through to the organisation to gain research access. Once access has been granted to the researcher, it becomes necessary to establish connections with members of the organisation, so having basic interpersonal skills and procedures such as good appearance, verbal, and non-verbal communication will play an important role at the "getting on" stage. This subsequently determines the quantity and quality of the data provided by respondents. Having collected the necessary data, the researcher will now embark on the "getting out" stage. Buchanan et al. (1988) suggested that the best way for a researcher to proceed with his/her own research is to agree on a deadline with the organisation, so as to bring the data collection process to a closure. Finally, the option of "getting back" (returning) to the organisation for further fieldwork should be kept, and this requires the researcher to manage the process of withdrawal from the organisation favourably.
I read the article three times, and gained new insights each time I read it. I can't help but agree with Kerry that each time the researcher reads the article, he/she will find the points mentioned more and more salient and relevant to his/her own research. Because I have mainly conducted interviews with university students (for convenience sampling), I may not be able to relate to the article entirely. Nevertheless, the authors brought up certain issues and incidents which I did encounter, and I'd like to reflect on two obstacles which I've encountered in data collection
(1) I totally agree with the authors that not all research projects will progress according to plan, even if the researcher(s) has closely followed the process of theory development and data collection methods, is highly conscientious, meticulous, and well-prepared. For instance, I planned to interview Indigenous students studying at the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre in the ANU and I had assumed that with the help of Kerry and Stuart, I would definitely be able to interview one or two Indigenous students. However, the Manager of the Centre did not like the idea of making the decision herself, and this is rightly so, since he/she does not represent the students, and merely manages the Centre and deals with the administrative issues. In performing research, there are always unavoidable realities, which instead of tackling them, it's sometimes best to not continue pursuing those interests and embark on the other alternatives. Because I could not gain access to Indigenous students at the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre, I sought the help of peers who I thought may have access to the Indigenous community within ANU. As luck would have it, my fellow Honours coursemate (Luke) recommended some Indigenous students to me, and Kerry along with the Manager of the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre referred me to the President of the Indigenous Students' Association, and suggested that I contact him directly to gain access to Indigenous students in ANU. I have since conducted one interview with a second-year CBE Indigenous male student, and will be carrying out another interview with a first-year CBE Indigenous female student over the weekends.
(2) One downside of conducting structured interviews is that the researcher, who is the one facilitating the interview-conversation, might fall into the trap of becoming overly mechanical, thereby impeding the process of eliciting personal, sensitive information which may play a crucial role in addressing the research question. Being overly mechanical may lead the researcher to "ignore many apparently trivial remarks and passing comments in the interview which if pursued could lead to further insights and improved understanding". In my case, I realised that when I was uncomfortable with the setting of the interview (e.g. a noisy cafe), I tended to be more mechanical and maintained a psychological distance with the respondent. This comprised on the quality and the quantity of the interview responses. Hence, I would like to think of the interview as more of a conversation, which can only be sustained through input from both the researcher and the respondent, via little gestures like being genuinely interested and showing genuine interest in the responses and life of the respondent. Another way is to use ice-breakers such as "how has your day been?", "have you got a lot of work to do?", and "have you heard about the latest (fashion/news/trends/cafes/store/etc.)" just to get the respondent into a relaxed mode and ease him/her into the interview. As Burgess (1988) puts it, qualitative research interviews, as opposed to structured survey interviews, are usually taken to involve some form of "conversation with a purpose". Hence, when carrying out interviews, I try my best to keep them conversational, dynamic, and flexible, so that I can engage effectively with the interviewee, and in the process, learn more about their opinions with regards to the research issues and their experiences.
Summary: The four stages a researcher has to go through when collecting data from an organisation
Stage 1: Getting In - Negotiate research access to organisations
Stage 2: Getting On - Establish effective relationships with respondents
Stage 3: Getting Out - Withdraw from those relationships
Stage 4: Getting Back - Returning to the organisation to follow up aspects of previous findings
Buchanan et al. (1988)
References
Buchanan, D., Boddy, D., and McCalman, J. (1988), "Getting in, getting on, getting out and getting back", in A. Bryman (Ed.), Doing Research in Organizations, Routledge, London, pp. 53-67.
Burgess, R. (1988), "Conversations with a purpose: the ethnographic interview in educational research", Studies in Qualitative Methodology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 137-155.
No comments:
Post a Comment