Qualitative Researcher's Reflexive Log

YEAHH!!!! We received Human Subjects approval!! We can start gathering data in earnest now!! VERY exciting news. Also, the first participant wrote back and said she had some time next week to conduct the interview. I am very curious to see how the interview goes and the kind of data I get.

The topic of telephone interviews also came up with my group. There is a beginning teacher in Northern Virginia whom I think would add a lot to the data, but I cannot really travel there to interview her. So I asked my group members what they thought of phone interviews. I didn't really get a definitive answer from any of them. They all said that it seemed fairly common practice but things like body language were lost, there was less back-and-forth, and the interviews were generally shorter. So, should we do them or not?

I sent an email today to two potential participants. One is a friend of a friend, and my friend (P.) called ahead to kind of "pave the way" so to speak. She responded almost immediately saying she would definitely be willing to participate! YEAH!! :-)

The other one, a professor whom I know is very busy, has not yet responded. Yet another dilemma. If she doesn't respond within a certain timeframe, should I email again, try calling, or just leave it be? I know people are so busy and I don't want to pressure anyone into doing something they don't have time to do. The thing about professors here, too, is they really want to help out the students and go above and beyond to do so. I don't want to make her feel badly if she honestly doesn't have time to participate by asking again.

I just sent an email to the faculty member I hope to interview. I hope it wasn't too long, and she decides not participate because I took so much of her time with email!! At the same time I think email is less obtrusive. People can read it, think about it, and respond when they are ready. I feel like if I call my potential participants they will feel pressured to give me an answer right away. I don't know....if it were me, I would rather get an email than a phone call. But, I guess that is one of my biases that I need to recognize and not project on to the study or my participants.

On another note, I am a little worried about whether or not observations at the upcoming national conference I am attending will add any substance to our study. Many of the presentations are geared toward classroom teachers, which, in a way, is good. We can see what type of information is being broadcast to teachers of the gifted. But, at the same time, the only teachers who get this information are teachers who attend the conference--a big time (and sometimes monetary) commitment. So, the argument could be made that the teachers are the conference are not a representative sample of teachers of the gifted at large.

I don't know.....I'm just not sure, based on past experience, that we are going to get the greatest observation data from this conference. I could be surprised, though, and will keep an open mind. :-)

YEAH!! Our Human Subjects application is finally in!! We should hear about consent within the next week or so.

I am feeling a little uncomfortable about contacting people for interviews before I am certain about human subjects consent. I know how busy everyone's schedule is and how much people prefer to be asked about specific dates rather than an ambiguous "would you be willing to participate." One of my group members, though, has contacted her interviewees and at least gotten them to agree to participate and told them she would contact them when human subjects approval was granted. I think I will take this approach. I am normally not a shy person at all, but when it comes to asking people to give up some of their time, I have a hard time doing so. I know it is a worthwhile cause and that the people I will be interviewing will, hopefully, be interested in increasing the knowledge around this concept, but........I still don't want to put anyone out.

I can't procrastinate on this one, though!!! I need to get moving and contact some people ASAP!!!!!

I think all the necessary edits have been made to the research proposal, and, hopefully, it will get submitted (along with the consent forms) this week. We also split up our list of participants by deciding who was going to interview whom. I am going to interview a high school gifted teacher, a regular middle school teacher, a middle school administrator, and a counseling professor. We also brainstormed some names and contacts. We are going to set up tentative dates for interviews pending approval from the human subjects review board. We have also revised all our interview questions to ensure that none of them can be answered yes or no.

I am a little bit nervous about follow-up questions. I know they are crucial to getting really dense data (and for facilitating rich, deep description). But I also know how easy it would be to lead the interviewee unintentionally just by the interview questions being asked. I am going to do some reading in Patton this week on interviewing technique (hopefully he has something in that massive book!!).

We are really ready to get started on this research project!! We have been working hard on editing our research proposal and making sure we have included all the necessary information in our consent forms. We are lucky to have a blackboard site where we can post documents and carry on conversations about them even if we aren't all free at the same time. We had a meeting with our professor last Friday and it amazed me the number of things we had not yet considered. I realized the power of collaboration and the importance of taking your ideas to other researchers--preferably more experienced than oneself--to get feedback. A fresh set of eyes can do wonders toward really crystallizing ideas, thoughts, and approaches toward a study design.

In class last night we talked about all the necessary components for human subjects review boards. It is truly amazing how forward thinking you have to be when writing consent forms and applying for approval. You really have to think through every possible scenario and make sure you include the option for certain things to happen even if you do not anticipate the need. Our homework for this class was to look at Stanford's website on Human Subjects Research (really a great site--www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/hs/). The history module was optional, but I was really interested in the reasons behind such stringent requirements. I was absolutely horrified by some of the research projects being conducted before Human Subjects guidelines were implemented. Since reading this information, I am less irritated by the consent form writing. I will gladly comply with the requirements if it means studies such as those will never be conducted again.

We decided we were going to include a perspective in our research proposal. Since we are conducting a constructivist study, we don't really need to claim a perspective because we are technically telling our participants stories. But, we also know that some of the thoughts and statements that come out of our interviews are not ideas our participants would have necessarily expressed if we had not asked. Therefore, we felt a social constructivism perspective was necessary. Basically, we are claiming two things. One is that our participants perceptions of giftedness have been socially constructed. Giftedness is a social phenomenon and without social interactions our participants would never have had reason to develop perceptions about it. Also, the mere act of interacting with us during the interview process may also influence our participants perceptions. Our interview questions may cause our participants to think about giftedness at a deeper level than they have before. Or, the questions may just help them crystallize their values and beliefs surrounding this construct. Either way--to whatever degree--interacting with us, the researchers, about this topic may influence the definition of our participants perceptions. Therefore, their perceptions are socially constructed by their past experiences as well as their interactions with us.

One of the scariest parts of this research study is the consent forms!!! The Human Subject laws are so incredibely strict. I understand why, and, unfortunately, know that people would continue to abuse people in research studies if there were not such stringent guidelines. What I find so difficult is trying to think of absolutely everything that might arise during an interview with someone and including it in the consent form while, at the same time, not making the project seem overwhelming to the participant reading and signing it. For example, in our study, we were trying to decide how best to generate documents for document analysis. We are going to ask teachers for copies of their lesson plans, administrators for copies of any policies they might have about teaching gifted students, and professors for lecture notes, and/or resources they provide for their students re: giftedness and gifted learners. It was suggested that we might also want to ask our participants to prepare a short statement on "What is giftedness?" prior to the interview. Of course, this would be perfect because it would instantly give us a document to analyze that would be directly related to both our study and our participant. But it has to go into the consent form. And seeing, "I understand I will be expected to prepare a statement on 'What is giftedness?' prior to the interview" might be a little daunting for some participants. Because we don't want to turn people away by appearing to be asking too much, we decided to make the preparation of the statement optional and state it as such in the consent form. Hopefully, most participants will choose to prepare a statement, especially if we assure them we are just looking for their thoughts and nothing too incredibely involved. But, if not all participants choose to write a statement then it will be more difficult to ascertain any trends that might emerge.

It just occurred to me, do we need to put in our consent forms what documents we would like to collect from our participants? I better go check now .......

While reading my group's discussion board last night I was reminded of an important piece of communication--clarity. Throughout our discussion board thread on the pros and cons of the interpretivist vs. the constructivist paradigm, we have been tossing around the words "group" and "categorize." Since the thread has been continuing for nearly 2 weeks, I think we had all forgotten the original meaning of each. Originally, group meant participants and categorize meant placing responses within established literature. With time, group morphed into established literature and categorize morphed into participant roles. The confusion surrounding this interchange is obvious. Whereas the conversation began with us agreeing that we did not want to categorize our participants perceptions within certain well-established "camps" in gifted education--i.e. Renzulli, Sternberg, Csiksentmihalyi, and Gardner, for example--it led to confusion and questioning of the very rationale on which it was based.

Let me see if I can "clarify:"

Our rationale for ultimately choosing the constructivist paradigm was to convey our participants' perceptions of giftedness using as much of their voices as possible. Rather than having us place their perceptions into one of the well-established camps in gifted literature, we would rather look at their open responses, untainted by what we know about the literature in the field.

Then, we want to see if any trends in perceptions emerge based on what role participants play in education--based on what group to whom they belong.

However, throughout the discussion, we were using "group" to refer to a "gifted camp in the literature" as well as a "collection of participants." Two very different ideas associated with the same word.

I am having difficulty finding words to encompass this issue of clarity. It is cyclical--if I were better at choosing words to convey what I really mean, then this issue of clarity would most likely not have arisen. But, since I am not, I am also having tremendous difficulty trying to reconcile the issue.

I don't know how to solve this problem of clarity, other than, perhaps, creating a map legend of sorts. Maybe it would be in our best interest to decide together what words we will use to refer to what aspects of our study, and, as elementary as it sounds, actually create a list of these words to use whenever discussing our study whether it be in person or on line.

My curious nature keeps nudging me to ponder the potential findings of this study. Because of the way the question was worded, "What do different people in different roles understand [giftedness] to be?" we have chosen our participants very deliberately. We have chosen to interview regular classroom teachers at elementary, middle, and high school plus a teacher of the gifted only; an administrator at the elementary, middle, and high school level plus a gifted coordinator; and professors of elementary education, exceptional children, gifted education, and school counseling. I wonder if we will uncover some sort of connection between the type of role one chooses to pursue in education and his/her conception of giftedness? Not that I think all educators think about their conception of giftedness when choosing their life's work. But what I am wondering is if there are certain world views that lead people to want to be administrators, for example, and these same world views would also lead them to have similar perceptions of giftedness when asked directly about this concept? I predict we will uncover some themes.

Changing the subject slightly, after writing the list of participants, I am wondering if we need to expand our list of teacher interviewees. We are already planning on interviewing an elementary, middle, and high school teachers who are in mainstream classrooms. We also said we wanted to interview a teacher who teaches only gifted students. Most likely, because of the way most gifted programs are organized, this teacher will be at the elementary level. There are still some pull-out programs for middle school students although they are becoming a rarity. So, finding a teacher at the middle school level who teachers only gifted students might be difficult unless we find a middle school that has homogeneously grouped classes. I think it might be beneficial as well to interview a high school teacher who only teachers AP and Honors classes. This is a matter to be discussed with my group. Hmmmm.

Back to the trends--I wonder if we were to interview both teachers of the mainstream and teachers of the gifted at each grade cluster if we would find trends consistent with grade level or consistent with students' level of giftedness? (I think grade level--regardless of who he/she is teaching an elementary teacher still has a certain mentality toward teaching as do middle and high school teachers.)

We have changed our paradigm once again!! We definitely should stick with this one--otherwise we'll spend all of our research time trying on different paradigms!!

We have decided to go with the constructivist paradigm as opposed to the interpretivist. At first, I thought the only difference was really whose words were used to tell the story. Having been a English major, I know how difficult it can be to weave together the dialogue of different characters and it gets even more difficult when you are trying to weave together the words of real people (as opposed to fictional characters). So, I was a little wary of the constructivist approach at first because I thought it held real potential to get complicated during the writing process.

However, I realized there is another difference. It isn't just the voices you use, it's the story you tell. By using the interpretivist paradigm we would be telling our story as researchers. It would be filtered through our own perspectives, views of the world, views of gifted, views on our experiences, and our interpretations of our participants experiences. We would be taking what the participants are saying and trying to find where it fits in the already existing literature about giftedness. This is not what we want to do.

What we are trying to accomplish, I think, is a fresh perspective on an age old question. We are looking for new, diverse, unique perspectives on giftedness to add to the depth of the dialogue already occurring on this concept. We do not want to fit their perspectives into pre-determined, pre-existing ideas. We have also said from the beginning that we do not want to impose our own beliefs on our participants. All of the interview questions are written in such as way as to ask for the participant's honest opinion. If we then take these honest perceptions and place them within a pre-existing context then we are adding a layer to our participants' perceptions that is not really their own. Just because we might classify them as adhering to a Renzulli model does not mean the participants would classify themselves as adhering to the Renzulli model. Plus, I think the point of the study is to get away from classification and giving the concept a name associated with a theory. I think the purpose of the study is to increase the depth, complexity, and understanding of real people's perceptions of giftedness.

For these reasons, the constructivist paradigm seems more fitting. Yes, it will be messier to write, but the variety of people's personalities, perceptions, and experiences in the real world can seldom be wrapped up in a nice bundle. By trying to do so would, I think, sell our participants short. Instead, we need to give them their own voices and let them tell their own stories. The study will be more powerful for its complexity and provide more insight into the complicated nature of the concept of giftedness by being a little messier.

After completing my researcher as instrument statement, I came to several conclusions. First, I did not realize how many life experiences I have had that have shaped my perception of giftedness. Making this discovery has helped ease my concerns about conducting the study as a phenomenological one. I was afraid that not enough of our participants would feel they had really lived the concept, but now I realize that many probably have. I intentionally did not include my experiences in the graduate program in my researcher as instrument statement, because I wanted to explore the underlying reasons for choosing the gifted program in the first place. Yes, I wrote my entry essay on why I wanted to learn more about teaching gifted students, but that essay did not require me to truly think about my own conception of giftedness and what life experiences had formed that perception. As I hit my stride while writing my statement, I was amazed at how many of my experiences in K-12 education were directly linked to my own understanding of the concept.

I was not surprised, however, to find that I do not have a clearly defined, tightly bounded conception of giftedness. I think this is true of many of my beliefs. While I do take a stand, I am not unwilling to listen to and seriously consider alternate points of view. I do not feel I have reached a place in my life yet--in terms of personal maturity and academic growth--where I can take an unwavering position on such huge questions as "What is giftedness?" I think this free-form notion of giftedness will actually be of service to me during this study. While I do have some biases that might conflict at times with the perceptions of some of our interviewees, my biases are not so strong as to prevent me from seeing validity in their perceptions. I also do not think my biases are so strong that they will be obvious to my interviewees thereby by potentially making them uncomfortable with sharing an opinion that may differ from mine.

At this stage in my life I am continuously feeling intensely curious. Having written my researcher as instrument statement I have a clearer understanding of my own perception of the concept. However, I am excited to hear others perceptions. I am hoping to expand my own beliefs, to challenge my perception with the perceptions of others who have had more and different life experiences.

This posting is really a Sunday, September 28 posting. Due to power and cable problems left behind by Hurricane Isabel, I was unable to get online. So, this is a recreation of a handwritten log entry.

Two of my group members (K and C) and I met this afternoon to discuss our upcoming research project. M was unable to attend, but sent a wonderfully written, concise outline of everything we had discussed in class as well as on our discussion board. The first major decision we had to make was whether or not to change the paradigm we had originally chosen for our study. We wanted to conduct a deconstructive study, because were feel there is a lot of "reading between the lines" that can be done when asking people about their perceptions of giftedness. In education, giftedness is often a touchy subject. Teachers do not want to offend others who may not share their views on the concept. Administrators have guidelines to which they must adhere concerning what their districts offer in the way of gifted services. Teachers of the gifted and gifted coordinators have been so immersed in the field that at times it becomes difficult for them to see "the forest for the trees." Also, these individuals have often felt the need, especially during graduate studies, to pick a giftedness camp with which to align their beliefs. It is common to hear teachers of the gifted and coordinators mention such names as Renzulli, Gardner, Stanley, and VanTassel-Baska when discussing their own understandings of the concept of giftedness. For these reasons, a deconstuctionist study would have been very effective at delving under the surface in search of the true meaning behind the interviewee's words. However, the only real way to interpret whether someone is "practicing what he/she preaches" is to observe his/her interactions with gifted students. Due to an overwhelmingly complicated process of Human Subjects approval, observing teachers in the classroom is not going to be a viable option for this particular project. I fear the semester would be more than halfway over before we even found out whether our human subjects proposal had been accepted or denied.

So, we took a step back and re-examined. If we cannot compare words to actions, then in what other way can we get the closest to finding out our interviewees' honest opinions of giftedness? We decided to go with an interpretivist study where we are sitting back watching, listening, and encouraging our interviewees to share their opinions. We have phrased all the interview questions in such a manner that it is clear we are looking for individual opinions. We even discussed the possibility of conducting a constructivist study where the majority of the report will be presented in the words and stories of our participants. This is something I hope to discuss with Judi during our 90 minute group session. Hopefully, if we make a conscious effort as researchers to appear non-threatening and encourage our interviewees to share their own personal opinions with confidence that we are not trying to change their minds then perhaps we will get closer to the truth than we expected we might when we first began discussing this project.