Last week’s MOO session provided me with lots of fodder (thank you, Becky, for introducing me to a new use of this word). One of the discussions we had centered on recruiting. We were discussing this in the context of the usability study, but I also am filtering much of our discussion through my study lens. Just as a refresher, two statements lead into my discussion: Rob "right people = available people" Becky says, "so how can we make sure we're not recruiting "to suit our needs"?"
My study this semester focuses on interviewing hospitalists with what I’ll call a traditional pattern of questions and then moving to a “think out loud” protocol. From one perspective, I’m asking these physicians because they do suit my needs. A few I have interviewed before, I know some of the key hospital staff and so the trust is there, and the hospital is located in my city. However, I think the bigger picture is do the people that we recruit (and I know this was in a slightly different context than mine) meet the standards of our study: age group, socioeconomic group, etc.
One other point that I’ve realized after my first study is one of familiarity when conducting research. While simultaneously improving familiarity, two other areas are needed. I hope to conduct research in hospitalist communication practices but on a much broader scale with my dissertation. My mission along the way is twofold: practice and grant money. I have consulted with numerous professors who have told me that it is helpful to present a local study and show results when applying for grant dollars. I’ve also realized that interviewing is very difficult. In listening to some of my first audiotapes, I talked and talked… Some of you might listen to the tapes and not have the same reaction, but I did.
Geertz, in his essay “The Interpretation of Cultures,” notes that what prevents us from understanding is not our ignorance or lack of cognition but a lack of familiarity. He also uses the expression, “finding our feet.” (13) Last semester, I was accepted in the doctoral program and knew many more studies were down the road for me. I have long recognized that I needed to know more about the hospitalist profession before I totally embarrassed myself in an interview. So, while this is longer than I meant it to be, I wanted to share a story about my journey toward familiarity:
In searching for more articles/information about the profession, I found an article by a physician. While reading the article, I was also spending time searching for hospitalist internships, which are just beginning to be introduced in medical schools. Since the profession began in 1996, there has been no formal training within the internist’s educational process. In searching, I also found that this physician is the Director of Education for a hospitalist intern program at John’s Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore). I sent him an email last November with all the necessary information and asking if he could send me information about the program and wanting to discuss the program with him. Two weeks ago, I received an email from him apologizing for the delay and asking if I still wanted to visit with him. It took us about a week to connect, and we had a 30 minute visit. From the visit I realized that some fundamental “familiar” areas I had presumed to be correct were slightly skewed. Close but not really. From the visit, he has faxed me a brochure, sent an email to a graduate of the program asking if she would contact me, given me suggestions as to funding sources, and opened the door to research at his hospital.
In my journey, familiarity has had a ripple effect, and I realize that this visit is just the beginning. Maybe later I'll share about being prepared. In the first few phone calls, his assistant had led me to understand that he might meet with me at a conference, etc. (in other words, possibly never) and his scheduled was packed. So, when I called and she said, "please hold, he can talk with you NOW" I had a minimal amount of paper - what a hoot in trying to read my notes left to right, up one side and down the other, etc.
Thanks for reading,
Debra
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What a terrific entry on "familiarity," Debra. It sounds like things are really coming together. for you. Congratulations on pulling the threads of our readings, discussions, and your own experiences together so fruitfully.
I really like the idea of traditional interviews followed by think-aloud protocols. It sounds like a lot of data for one semester, but this will certainly be a great springboard to your diss. Go Debra!
I found your story intriguing, Debra, and I think you've hit on an important point regarding familiarity. Isn't it interesting that after you met with the doctor, he was suddenly more interested in helping you, or as you say, your visit opened doors! I wonder about that with my own project, in which I am starting out with email questionnaires. I can't help but wonder if meeting f2f is a distinct advantage for researchers. Like how our reading this week talks about building a partnership with your subjects. Good stuff!
I think the concept of recuriting to suit our needs is interesting. It is indeed sticky territory. On one had, all the people be recruit will suit our needs. After all, we do have a target audience for our research. On the other hand we have to be careful about not picking that perfect, narrow audience. You know, the one that will give you all the answers you want, but the research won't apply to a larger audience later.
You write about familiarity. I totally agree that to research something, we must be familiar with it. But, to become familar, we need research!
It reminds me of context. I think what you are calling familiarity is context. If we have context, and we understand our participant's context, we ask better, more directed questions. WE can think critically and see between the lines and make connections. This makes our research more rich and productive.
Deb, I think I'd like to make your post "required reading"! Thanks for sharing this timely and important "fodder". (as a midwest farmer's daughter, I know a lot about fodder...!)
I love Geertz's notion of "finding our feet". If you've ever watched a newborn foal or calf learn to walk (or even a toddler), you know what that looks like. I think it's a great metaphor.
Interviewing does get better the more you do it. And so do the questions you ask, as you learn more about who you're studying.
I think you really have made some excellent contacts. I'm eager to see where they take you and your research!
Post a Comment