In this assessment, you will examine potential conflicts of interest that might exist because of your role and positionality within the organization in which you will collect data.
Then you will actually code your interview transcripts and identify themes to inform the development of your narrative.
This will also be a time to connect these qualitative data logically with other evidence and existing quantitative data that you uncovered in your data-gathering process earlier in the course (review the Framing an Issue and Data Collection Plan assessment where you identified the existing data on your topic).
Finally, you will develop a validity matrix that reflects the totality of ethical issues that you considered as you identified codes, coding categories, and emergent themes.
Use the Data Coding and Ethics Template [DOCX]. Arrange your assessment in a single document with three headings: Part 1: Researcher Relationships and Positionality 2; Part 2: Data Coding 3; Part 3: Validity Matrix.
Part 1: Researcher Relationships and Positionality
For Part I of this assessment, develop several paragraphs (300–500 words) that respond to the following questions:
Describe your positionality as a researcher.
How would your positionality as a researcher be defined—as an insider working with insiders, for instance?
How would you describe your positionality in terms of power relationships with potential stakeholder groups from whom you might interact and collect information?
Explain ethical considerations and conflicts of interest.
What conflicts of interest exist, given your role and positionality?
Which principles learned in CITI training apply to information gathering and data collection in your own organization?
Explain the risks involved in data collection and efforts to ensure ethical practices and accuracy.
How could someone be hurt or at risk as a consequence of a focus group interview, individual interview, survey, or observational data collected in your organization?
How did you ensure ethical practices in gathering your data?
How did you ensure accuracy in your data collection? What were the results of your member checking with participants?
What are the clear benefits of the information you obtained during your interviews or focus group and do they outweigh the risks?
How might bias creep into your data collection or analysis, and how might you avoid it?
Part 2: Data Coding
Use separate headings in Part 2 for the first three assessment components below:
Complete the following under the heading “Context:”
Provide an introductory narrative of the context of the data collection, including the development question.
Include a one- or two-sentence description of the issue you are investigating: your development questions.
Describe how you expected the interviews to add to your understanding of the issue.
Complete the following under the heading “Findings:”
Provide a summary report of the data collection that includes findings and evidence.
Report on the results of your coding exercise.
Tell the story of your results so that the reader has insight into your findings.
Include quotes from your interviewees as appropriate to support your inferences.
Complete the following under the heading “Relationship to Other Data:”
Explain the alignment of new data collected with existing data.
Explain how the findings from your data collection connect to other data you have examined in relation to the issue (records or document data).
Provide a copy of interview transcripts along with coding used for thematic analysis.
Include these transcripts in an appendix to the paper.
Part 3: Validity Matrix
Provide a complete validity matrix and an accompanying memo explaining threats to validity.
First, review the Credibility and Dependability Matrix [DOCX] template.
Recreate the table and fill in each component related to your course project and the data you collected. Replace your guiding question or questions with the research questions in the table. Consider all of the validity measures that could apply to your activities if they were part of a research study.
Complete the remainder of the table and include the complete validity matrix in your paper’s main body.
Provide appropriate scholarly narrative that explains and justifies the threats to validity you identified. For example, one threat may be the selection process you used to identify your interviewees.
