Multiple Definitions

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 

When coding for revealed causal mapping, it is critical to examine words that describe

cause or effect concepts. Researchers must be very careful because in many cases, the

same word may actually describe something reflecting a different concept or the same

concept at a different level of granularity. For example, the word “training” emerged from

many of the transition interview transcripts. However, when taken in context, “training”

was an individual-level concept in the categories of Knowledge Acquisition, Motivation

and Personal Outcomes, but “training” was also a concept which was described by the

respondents as something that was seen as Corporate Support and Direction which is

at the organizational level. Therefore, it is clearly necessary that in the cross-validation

procedure, the coding assigned to the cause and effect statements in the spreadsheets

must often be traced back to the actual transcript of the interview from which they were

taken to reconfirm the proper context. If this is not done very carefully and all the steps

followed (Nelson et al., 2000), or coders are not trained properly, it is very likely that

concepts will be coded incorrectly.

Lessons Learned

There are several lessons that the researcher interested in this type of study can take

away from this chapter. The first is that it is important to develop a well thought out

interview guide with open-ended questions. These questions should be focused on

guiding the participant to the phenomenon without biasing the participant’s response.

In addition, the success of the interview often resides in the interviewer’s probing skills.

Depending on the phenomenon under study, the interviewee may be reluctant to discuss

the issue or be unsure as to what “answers” you are looking for. The follow-up probes

allow you to fully explore the different facets of the issue, again guiding the participant

to the phenomenon.

The second lesson deals with the concept elicitation. As I stated, an open mind is key

when eliciting the concepts from the transcripts. With revealed causal mapping (as with

other qualitative methods) the researcher should maintain an open mind regarding what

concepts and linkages will emerge from the study. Often it is the unexpected that provides

the most insight to the phenomenon. The researcher should be attentive to the multiple

levels of granularity that a concept may have, as well as the multiple meanings. Care must

be taken to accurately capture the words and intent (context) of the participant, so

valuable data is not lost.