Instructions: Please upload the feedback you received from your peer on your interview transcript here, along with your brief response either: a) responding to the comments or b) documenting your own reactions to reading someone else's interview. (2-3 pages single-spaced total) DO NOT include the transcript or memo from YOUR OWN interview. Please title the document using YOUR last name before you upload as required in the Protocols, but also please make sure the reviewer's name is clearly identified on the top of the document.
Reviewer Name: Boaventura DaCosta
Interviewer Name: David Norman
The following summarizes my (Boaventura DaCosta) critique of David Norman's interview.
First, it appears that David didn't follow the format (notation) outlined in our text for transcription. He didn't use the participant initials; however, he did accomplish the same result by bolding the dialog of one of the interviewer and not the interviewee to distinguish between the two. This works fine for two people, but if there were three or more, using the initials would have been a better solution.
Second, David was diligent in following protocol with his consent to ensure the participant understood the interview, the processes, what was expected, and that the participant's identity was protected. He essentially followed what was approved by the IRB and even tried to explain the IRB to the participant. He lastly was sure to obtain the participants permission in the recording.
Third, even though David explained the interview process and outlined the purpose of the interview, he didn't seem to explain two fundamental concepts of the study, which were Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. Perhaps this was part of the interview process, but at the beginning of the interview one of the hurdles appeared to be that the participant didn't understand those terms. David, however, brought this out in his memo, so he was aware of it and appeared to learn from it.
Fourth, since the interview questions were so open-ended and it appears that the interviewee was supposed to figure out the concept of digital natives and digital immigrants (maybe), the interviewee seemed to stray a bit in their answers. David could have done a better job of keeping the interviewee on track, but perhaps he was trying to see where the interview would go. He noted this in his memo and so I believe he's learned from it.
Fifth, David did a good job to ensure that the interviewee did most of the talking. However, the questions he asked didn't seem to help elaborate or perhaps even clarify. David might want to rethink some of the questions, or perhaps even interject new questions that might help the interviewee elaborate on their answers. David followed his interview questions, but interjecting new questions to help elaborate might have been helpful. David alluded to this in his memo.
Lastly, I didn't see any evidence of that he tried to use Seidman advice that was presented in class. This isn't to say that David didn't attempt to use any of it, but I didn't see any references to it in David interview materials. It might prove advantages to perhaps keep a copy of the advice with him during the interview process to guide him.
As soon as I read some of Ben's reactions, I made some changes to the transcript I submitted to him, most noticeably to include initials for myself and the participant. I was glad to see my bolding idea worked out for understanding the flow of the transcript.
Not describing or defining Digital Natives or Digital Immigrants was a conscious decision on my part. I believe the terminology Prensky coined could affect what materials get emphasized in a literature review. My intention was to explore the accuracy of the definitions. In fact, the participant took some deviations from the Prensky definition of the terms. From my point of view, the participant's definitions give some evidence the terminology may need to be refined to properly describe what Prensky intends to describe in his papers and in tern what is validated in research.
The fourth note Ben makes to say describe the open-endedness gave a perfect result, in my opinion. Since I had never asked the questions before, I had no idea whether going straight through the survey would take five minutes or thirty. My goal was to make sure I minimally got through the questions I had in my pilot study. If time was left over, then I could have, and wished I could have, pursued the topics in more detail. The moments where my participant strayed from the topic were probably opportunities to tie their experience into more detail related to my research had I the opportunity to continue the interview longer. Ben's inference about not having a Seidman reference sheet with me was correct. Even if I had taken a sheet of Seidman advice with me to the interview, I was too concerned with getting someone to just complete the questionnaire to have referenced it. Instead, comparing my product to Seidman's suggestions as part of this review process will have to serve as a learning increment for improving for my next interview.
Reading Ben's memo and transcript gave me ideas for doing research in the future in terms of interview preparation. This past week, I participated in a focus group for About Orlando Market Research, which I took note of how a full-time moderator operated. Even when people asked him questions, he was able to redirect them back into questions for the focus group participants. I also took note that he had a two page agenda to organize the time he had with the group. His sheet was outlined with blocks of time to keep the topics from overrunning or going short. If he didn't get enough responses to a question to fill his pre-planned block of time for that topic, he dug deeper into the topic of that moment. Each block of time had pre-defined questions to ask in case to make sure he didn't forget anything. I had initially joined the research panel for About Orlando because I know how hard it can be to get participants for surveys, but it actually turned out to be something I will recommend to other students for experiencing how people do qualitative research for a living with demanding clients who focus more closely on the dollar than in a classroom.
My questionnaire was designed to pilot over the Internet, so I had to be a bit creative with the IRB process of informed consent. In the end, I believe the interview result came out as closely as was possible to anonymous. Even after having done the interview, I could probably not identify the participant again; I think the remaining identifying information was minimized.
I also noticed some flaws with my survey after the fact. For example, the age distributions of the age categories on my survey are not equal. Most use a ten year increment; however, under 25, 55-59, and 60+ don't fit in that mold. I am also curious whether IRB would have had a problem with me asking an exact age since that would be closer to actual identifying information. The open-endedness of the educational degree was too much; it left room to say undergraduate, or BA, or BA in Special Ed, or even MA in Special Ed from UCF with a thesis on childhood development. I probably should have also given the participant a paper copy of the informed consent information.