aim 2 data analysis Flashcards
Describe your qual analysis steps
familiarize herself with interviews by reading the first three to five transcripts and taking informal notes on key concepts and themes.
Themes and subthemes will be identified through a modified thematic constant comparative approach in which themes will be compared within and across SSB sites.
After review with the study team, the student investigator and another coder will begin the process of inductive and deductive open and axial coding. These codes will be used to begin developing a thematic framework of key concepts and themes which will be developed into a codebook.
Both coders will independently code each transcript and through regular meetings will compare and discuss the application of the codebook to each transcript until they reach consensus. The codebook will serve as a living document that will be further refined throughout the data analysis process.
Once all transcripts have been coded, the qualitative data will be indexed by theme and arranged into a matrix by theme and by case (e.g. SSB site). This approach allows for both deductive and inductive and data reduction to facilitate cross-case comparisons on key concepts as identified a prior in the SEM model and as discovered throughout the data collection process
at this stage, the student investigator will conduct member checking with SSB staff to share-back preliminary concepts and themes that are emerging. Member checking is a tool to increase the internal validity of the findings (Bernard et al., 2016). Ideally this share-back will foster conversation with SSB staff who will discuss the credibility and transferability of the findings.
You mention study team to assess emerging themes and saturation. Who will the team be? What is saturation and how do you determine you’ve reached it? Give example.
Guidance from Jo Richardson- second coder- someone from the gun center or a masters student not yet identified
Saturation: feel that you’ve developed an in-depth understanding of the main phenomenon of interest and you are no longer learning any new information: hearing the same things over and over again, redundancy, diminishing returns of additional interview.
Why important to do data collection and analysis at the same time
E.g. curious about SSB legitimacy- how community views the program. Expect to hear a range of feelings (respect, disrespect) range of people (young kids, older adults) how it changes over time and why it might change over time. Stop hearing new ideas in that, feel like I’ve heard the range of responses on that, feel reached saturation on that theme. Want to feel that way across a majority of themes that OW and study team have deemed important
Define constant comparative approach. Define thematic framework/theme matrix.
Search for similarities and diffferences by making systematic comparisons across units of data. Within participants and across participants, within sites and across sites.
Its defining feature is the matrix output: rows (cases), columns (codes) and ‘cells’ of summarised data, providing a structure into which the researcher can systematically reduce the data, in order to analyse it by case and by code
Might be a two step process: interviews within a site and then across sites
Way of reducing and organizing data
Con- very structured and a lot of data reduction. Use as a tool to keep track of scope of content and see patterns of key similarities and differences
Define member checking, what will shareback look like. What frequency? What if disagree? What if new information comes up in those sessions?
Results and interpretations taken back to participants to be confirmed/disconfirmed and validated/unvalidated. Plausibility and truthfulness of the information can be recognized and supported
Shareback short presentation followed by question and discussion
Planned for twice: once after preliminary coding and analysis has been completed, once before writing up the results
Prepared to take notes, potentially ask to record a conversation if it gets detailed. Part of knowledge generation process, would be great for that to co-occur naturally in that shareback
Understand and acknowledge disagreements. Between me and consensus in room, I defer to consensus in room and take time to understand my misinterpretation. If not consensus in the room, note that and bring forward conflicting view points.
Define credibility. Define transferability. Examples
Credibility: Did I “get it” do my interpretation and descriptions ring true. Similar to internal validity.
Transferability (analogous to external validity): knowledge from this study applied to other situations. Depends on similarities/differences of the two contexts. Detailed description of time, place, context, and culture can help. Context of what is going on blatimore, going on with the program, context under which information is being gathered etc.
what do you mean micro context aim 2
This aim attempts to understand factors that influence the person-context interaction of specific violent or potentially violent events and dig in to interrelated factors of social identity, toughness, gun carrying, normative behavior, decision making, and retaliation.
how get honest assessment from people/best answers i can get?
buy in- if feel answers could help the program or expose some issues, more likely to tell the truth
taking the time to understand some of the culture of safe streets/site before jumping into the interview. asking questions that feel relevant, using language that resonates, building rapport
framing- objective external evaluator but believe in the program and the model, want to figure out how to make it better and invest strategically.
genuine, authentic, patient, persistent where feels right
