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.