Hello,
I am in the process of recruiting participants for my PhD dissertation and am now re-thinking the design of the data collection phase. At the moment I aim to recruit 3-6 participants. The actual data collection is currently structured as follows:
All of the above will take place over several months.
After re-reading Smith, Flowers & Larkin's text, I wonder if the above will generate more data than needed for a PhD, and therefore make it more difficult to achieve high quality analysis? Any input is appreciated,
cheers Susan
Susan - a few observations from me. Why are you interviewing twice - and why longitudinal over several months? The nature of phenomenological research is not to 'pre-test - post-test' (I know that you haven't said that you are going to do this) but it is how I view it from what you are listing. The nature is to get a single 'snap-shot' of experience at the time of interviewing. If enough data has not been collected - then you go back to the original sample or recruit further i.e. snow-balling. I would also argue that your sample size (even with 6) is somewhat small for a PhD thesis - especially if it is a single methodology - and not mixed methods or multi-method. Personally, I would argue that you would be better off recruiting a larger sample and interviewing the once - giving you a greater chance of reaching some form of 'saturation' first round. Also - if you are recruiting at this stage, shouldn't your 'exact' process have been through ethical clearance? If so - any main change of design direction will need to be re-assessed.
Perhaps the attached chapter on sampling and data collection may assist.
I doubt if the second interview is really helpful. My advuce would be the following: Make a first interview, analyse, decide what to do next: second interview with the same person or new interview. Analyse again immediately. After having analysed ask two questions: direction for the next interview, saturation. You seem to be still in a logic of quantitative sampling. You have to free you from that and be aware that you follow a different course.
Thanks for your responses Dean and Charles,
You have both given me some food for thought. Yes, I have already gained ethical clearance but am prepared to make modifications to the design now rather than later if needed.
The second interview is very open-ended and is mainly to give me an opportunity to seek clarification or elaboration on participant responses after I have started analysing the data.
In Smith, Flowers & Larkin (2009), second interviews and longitudinal studies are both discussed if using a small sample of participants.
I will think on it some more.
Thanks again.
The idea of getting further feedback from your participants to "seek clarification" on your emerging results is frequently referred to as "member checking." As such, it is primarily a method for increasing the "rigor" or "credibility" of your research. If that is an important goal for you, then this data collection could be justified on that basis.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medical Science Nursing
- Dissertations