[I-5] Dilemma’s in Qualitative Research Interviewing

In the article “Researcher v Counselor”(Konza 1986) I think that the researcher should have concurred with the spirit of Silverman’s advice in his earlier book (2004) and ended the interview sessions after repeated episodes of distressed behavior in the principal’s office. I wonder about the incidences that we didn’t read about in this article – those when professional boundaries were tentatively breeched or when the mother’s divergent behavior was encouraged (or at least unchallenged) instead of rebuked during the course of personal interviews. I wonder if the researcher imparted an “irresistible” value as discussed in our readings. Perhaps the researcher presented a non-judgmental empathy within the mother’s environment where that did not reside. So many things seem to be the responsibility of the researcher. I absolutely think that the researcher lost her focus. Maybe the researchers’ passion is another factor that blinded these observations, but as is said “The burden rests with the researcher”.
After reading the article, ‘”Differing Realities (Konza 1986) it seemed as if the ethnographer developed a second agenda during the interview. Rather than conducting a fact-finding mission to reflect the couple’s beliefs, it became one of surreptitiously steering the couple to reach an alternate conclusion about their supposition, within the course of a planned interview. I cannot see this as very laudable. I am reminded about the Regulations and Ethical Guidelines of the Belmont report from NIH office of human subjects research http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html#goc2 linked to our resources for this week. In it they describe ‘beneficence’, which is based on and extends the central tenet of the Hippocratic oath -“Do no harm”. It should be noted that although the interviewees have an erroneous opinion that may be harmful to their wellbeing- it is not a supposition brought by the researcher and there should be no direct responsibility to contest that within the course of the research. As Silverman states, they can be directed to counseling resources if they appear to be overwhelmed as a result of the interviews. I certainly don’t want to appear cold-hearted and I can relate to how painful it is to come to the realization of a child’s diagnosis as you witness in your profession. I once wrote about the time of my revelation: “as a loving father, it was hard to fight back the tears- partially to mourn the death of my son, the scholar; partially to dispel the dream of reliving my scholastic life vicariously; partially in guilt for nightly threatening matches over homework; but mainly because my child’s opportunities in life were officially reduced.” As is said, researchers should not normally inject themselves into the emotional processes of the interviewee- albeit difficult.

[I-5]Qualitative Researcher Vs Counselor

The article, Researcher vs. Counselor (Konza 1986) highlights a cogent example of a researcher with real questions about whether she complied with the admonition to “to do no harm” as Clarke and Sharf (2007) articulate. The study entailed several interviews with a mother about her ADHD child in school as her actions became progressively erratic to the culmination of the research. There were several ethical core points in the case.

First, it is important to question the rapport strategy observed by Konza. During the course of the study, the interviewee became more dependent on the researcher. Clarke (2006) informs us that a researcher needs to “consider carefully the potential risks of the interview” and its “potential to be therapeutic”. While it is not uncommon to put an interviewee at ease during a session, and sometimes empathy can soothe the exchange or give needed support to continue, one cannot be so caring as to become therapy. Although Konza suggested that Michael's mother might have been promised a source of support that wasn’t delivered, I contest that the sessions had met a need in the interviewee’s life. She was obviously getting something from the visits, even if it was not from the content of the session, but rather as an exploitive vehicle to dramatize her desperation.

I would also propose that, although the researcher did repeatedly emphasize to the mother the need to seek counseling, she alternately offered ( even if was is tacitly) a venue for counseling without the hassle of seeking an agency and paying a therapist. Lastly, Clarke and Sharf (2007) warned that you must be careful when unmasking emotions. One might have perceived the intensity at each session or the accumulative quality of sharing over the course of the interviews as being potentially problematic.

If I were confronted with the situation, I would hopefully have been more perceptive from the outset. However, after realizing the issue, I would make sure that my demeanor was that of a researcher (more businesslike and less empathetic). I would reiterate the stated benefits of the research and reinforce what it is not. If the research study framework allowed, I would assign an associate come in during sessions or switch interviews to a fellow researcher. I would examine my context and impetus for doing the research to study whether I have an agenda, or am too emotionally attached to the research topic. Lastly, I would encourage the principal to follow through with the procedure when a parent is barred from the school, in the hopes that it may contain direct social service intervention.

This article brings up a lot of questions to me about doing my research. It is very likely that my research will be done at my university because we are planning a massive building campaign so I should have the opportunity to directly design and assess the new teaching spaces over the next 5 years. I will need to reflexively review my research and take particular precautions to manage feeling of reciprocity ( and informed consent issues) from my students as I will likely be one of their future professors. Politically I will have to scrutinize my agenda and make sure that my research is not a referendum on teaching methods or traditional teachers verses new technology etc… And I need to consider the length of the commitment of my interviewees so I don’t end up in the “You tube dilemma” of Jordan Crittendon.

[I-5] Considering Different Qualitative Methodologies for my Research...

I take away from research review the thought that Text and Visual Documents Methods may not be a methodology that easily suits my research area. Although I know it is a method that can allow for, not only direct documentation of ones work, but a media that provides for intense scrutiny of your subjects, I don’t know that, for instance, videotaping people-environment interactions in a room would be as effective as an observer (because of the monocular view of a fixed camera). It does seem, however, like photography or videography would be helpful in creating a behavioral map that can be superimposed onto architectural floor plans for analysis. Also, excerpts of those methods would be helpful to illustrate the findings of the research. 

My interest is in exploring how public, private and semi-private clustering can enhance classroom learning in a curriculum that advances a college student from pedagogy to knowledge-centered learning through their academic course. My questions about this method as it might relate to my work might be the following: Would videotaped classroom experiences provide a more valid, or accurate basis of evaluation than person to class observations? Can discordant actions be quantified easier on tape and is the coding more accurate and verifiable? Are there classroom environments that work better, not because of their physical attributes, but because of a social acceptance of a traditional layout and can that preference be tested through a text and visual document method?

As it stands now, I see limited possibilities to employ this method, but the next steps to take would be to review what other researchers in my are of study have done and to continue to work on refining my research question.

The work I reviewed on the observation method was very helpful to me in conceiving my own research. The work of (Fresch 2005) concerning learning to read and write in first grade was important in that it highlighted for me a situation where longitudinal observations inform more that strictly quantitative testing over time. Indeed, in architectural journal literature, many studies of the relationship between humans and the environment are qualitative in nature and, more specifically, they involve observation methods.

In architectural practice, however, I found that when qualitative research was offered as a deliverable, we tend to use methods other than observation. For instance, we have produced POE’s (post-occupancy evaluations) as a design service for our clients. These documents usually consist of unmediated interviews and surveys of the actual building users to illuminate how the completed building is actually functioning in relation to its intended operation. They conclude with a list of recommendations for future buildings. My professional genre at the time was federal buildings (judicial centers, prisons and post offices). The US government reviewed the information in the attempt to fine-tune a building type, learn ways to design better and more cost effectively. Simple observations of the environment (and our subsequent evaluation of the observations) would not provide the direct accountability and first-hand ‘on-air’ experience evidenced in our interview and survey method (we produced our POE’s with a camera crew and voiceover talent so that our client received a video with paper documentation). This really speaks to the comment in our readings of suitability of methods – observation methods are often required to evaluate behavior; surveys look to clarify intention. So, I take away the notion of suitability of methods to support my own research interests. In addition, I now have examples of research where observations work well and studies where it is not an appropriate method. 

             Because of the connection of observation to architectural research, it seems likely to be important in my study. I’ve read that there are two common ways that observations are employed  - “as a method to help define what was real for the participants in the study” and as a vehicle to help refine their research question. Therefore, from my Researcher's Notebook many questions emerge like, what is the existing classroom reality for college students? How is pedagogy or knowledge-based learning affected by the built environment and vice versa? What type of experience is most needed for the person(s) appropriate for conducting the observations – architectural, professorial, administrative or behavioristic? How does that inform the coding?

As it stands right now, there are many more possibilities than drawbacks for use of the observation method in my research because of its ability to illuminate experiential interactions and focus research, despite the opinion that it can be highly subjective.

            The next step for me to check out the methodological possibilities of using observation is to put great effort in framing the research question.  Also, more research review is needed to discover studies that try it explain or illuminate how a college student navigates the general  lecture / private self-learning /availability of scaffolding resources/subgroup work/exterior resource functions within an open innovative classroom. 

In my area of research, which is exploring how public, private and semi-private clustering can enhance classroom learning in a curriculum that advances a college student from pedagogy to knowledge-centered learning through their academic course, at first thought, I assumed that a strict quantitative measure (say test achievement) would demonstrate how physical elements enhance learning. However, after further research, I can see that focus group methods could illuminate much more of the findings than simple proficiency scoring. Also, the idea of using interview and focus groups would be beneficial to support classroom observation through triangulation. 

There needs to be great attention paid to the makeup of the focus groups. Questions about this method might be: As a professor, I have had to deal with course (teacher) evaluations, so how can I ensure that focus groups consisting of students are useful and not petty, biased, apathetic, hateful, agenda-driven or spiteful?  How can a research study on an effective classroom environment in New England be conducted using this method, so that the findings are universal?

Because of the benefits of a mixed-design methodology, stated previously, there are great possibilities of this method in my research. A challenge would be that the researcher would have to carefully consider the role and training of the facilitator in a focus group and how group dynamics can affect student responses in the groups. The next step that I need to take to consider this method is to perform due diligence in terms of exploring existing research in my area of study and developing and refining my research question.

[I-5] Considering a Qualitative Researcher in Esteem?

A colleague remarked to me recently that she heard it takes forever to get respected as a qualitative researcher. “Is this just an unfounded rumor?” she inquired. That is a difficult question, and I am probably one of the least prepared to answer that. So, I’ll try.

Of course, David Silverman in Interpreting Qualitative Data (2006) acknowledges the sentiment that some call qualitative researchers “journalists or ‘soft scientist’ who’s work is ‘termed unscientific, or only exploratory, or entirely personal and full of bias” Denzin and Lincoln 1994:4). This seems to support her premise in general.  Also, in the overview, the Research Methods Knowledge Base, a comprehensive web-based textbook that addresses social research methods, links lack of respect of qualitative researchers to perceived validity of research. They offer an alternate criteria for judging qualitative research (it is highly debatable) of which some of their proposals entail basing credibility from the perspective of the participant instead of externally and judging transferability of research not by remarks from the author, but rather, positioning it in the domain of the reader who has been supplied all the relevant data. However, when she asked about “being respected” as a qualitative researcher, my first response was “respected by whom”?

Her life and experiences are quite different than mine. Research was not a part of my education. I am a professor and an architect, and thus, I am in a field where, in my opinion, you gain expertise from the ‘doing’ – the art of design and the business of building. Granted, I conduct research frequently in my practice, but it is highly quantitative with comparison of proficiencies for building systems and materials. Indeed, within our 5 year bachelorate program, my students learn little about research (this is similar with Masters Programs). Also, keep in mind that a master’s degree in architecture or design is the terminal degree for professorship at nearly all universities in America.  It is interesting that at the post-graduate level in architecture and design, one often has their first formal introduction into research methods! One of my colleagues and none of my department administration have doctoral degrees. Nevertheless, although not in an educational setting, there is common exposure to qualitative methods.

If I am concerned about respect as a qualitative researcher from my peers (architects who might use the findings to aid in the creation of their work or fellow faculty or department professors),it is important to know that qualitative research methods are commonplace in the professional architecture and design literature. From the arguably foundational “House as a Mirror of Self: Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Home “ by Clare Cooper Marcus (1995), which uses an open interview method to the many published case studies by the Harvard University, such work abounds. I believe that architects and designers, in general, respect a qualitative methodology as a way to more fully explore the experiential perception of a space, but they look at it with the scrutiny of one devoid of formal research education, wary of being told “convincing stories” as David Silverman remarks in his Preface on page xiii.  

Respect from the architectural research community (AIA Committee on Architecture for Education, Interior Design Education Council, etc…) I’m sure, is more hard-earned. Now, with my entry into the PhD program, I move from being largely a recipient to a contributor of works. I hope that it will not be a matter of me being respected as a qualitative researcher, but rather, my qualitative research earning respect.