Movement

I sit here today reflecting on the completion of the fourth interview in my research process. I am still amazed that this is happening. From that first moment of receiving the research ethics approval letter and up to this point, there are these moments of sheer joy and incredulity that this research is moving forward. I am reminded of the title of this blog site because this movement is very much step by step – mostly forward but some backward movements and always haltingly, uncertainly, unevenly.

These first four interviews are with well respected and well known people in the field of teacher education in Canada whose stories are each unique and different, but pulling key terms from each of their interview transcripts shows some common threads in the topics and concepts they shared. I have done preliminary coding of three of the four transcripts and will work on the fourth in the coming days since my process includes sending the transcript back to the interviewed individual along with a word cloud rendering of the transcript. My process thus far has been slightly different depending on my relationship with the individual being interviewed. First contact is when I reach out to see if they are interested in participating. This is done with a formal email, as developed and approved by research ethics (see the Appendices of the research proposal). With this email is the letter of information about the research which includes a link to the video I prepared.

Note: perhaps I should be including the link to the video into that first email to make it easier to find and/or access since only one of the four participants so far has indicated they viewed the video. This would ensure that they are aware of the information, risks, and potential benefits.

Once they respond to this first email, I go back and forth with the potential participant to find an agreeable time for the interview, which can take a few days. I am still amazed that out of the ten emails I have sent out, nine have agreed to be interviewed, and each one has responded with some positive comments about the potential for this research. For these ten people, I have only had to resend the invitation to one individual and that was primarily an error on my part with an incorrect email which did not bounce back to me to indicate that it did not go to the intended recipient.

In order to track the progress through this interview process, I have created and maintain not only a spreadsheet where I check what has been completed for each participant, but also a paper/notebook record of the steps in the process, checking off or making notes of what needs to be done next. I am keeping a pdf version of the emails in a folder on my laptop so I can reference this if something changes or a question arises. I do this in case I’m not able to access my email at any particular time and need assurance that a particular step has been agreed to with a particular participant, particularly since I am working from multiple devices at various stages of my day. This allows me to respond rapidly and accurately to a query or request from a participant.

So once that first email has been sent, a positive response has been received, and a date for the interview has been arranged, I set up the Zoom event and send this to the participant. In this email I also provide information about the second phase of the research, including some links to media and digital literacy frameworks, as well as the research protocol that will guide the conversation. In each of the interviews done so far, it was evident that this protocol was referenced either during or prior to the interview. The protocol does help guide the conversation. In the latest interview it was less guide and more touchpoint, since the interview turned out to be very much a conversation about their lived experiences with MDL and open educational practices which were very much intertwined rather than separate or distinct entities. In this interview, the screen sharing function helped this participant talk about their OEPr through the work being done at the institution and how MDL elements are embedded throughout.

Two participants have asked for a calendar notification to be sent which I had not thought of doing – this should become an automatic part of the process. This makes it easier for this to be integrated into their scheduled events on whichever calendar tool they are using, while also making it easier to find the Zoom link when it is needed. Since I appreciate having this for my own work, I can do this for future scheduled interviews.

So my process looks something like this:

• first contact, email or DM on Twitter, with letter of information attached
• RSVP agreeing to participate – second email with informed consent attached and requested dates/times
• emails to confirm date & time
• email with confirmed date and time; link to Zoom meeting; information about phase 2 activity; reminder to send informed consent if not yet done
• set up and share calendar event with Zoom link and key points for this time (new part of the process)
• do the interview
• store video and audio files in a folder with participant’s name/pseudonym
• upload audio file into Otter.ai for transcription – usually takes 30-60 minutes (I have paid for this account and finding it quite accurate in how it transcribes even difficult vocal moments)
• download word doc of the transcription and file with the audio/video
• 1st pass: listen to the video recording while editing and fixing transcription errors
• save a second version of the transcription which can be used for the word cloud generation – for this one I remove reference to any identifiable names or events that need to be kept anonymous or confidential
• upload transcript into Word Art and generate a word cloud – I have a free account which allows unlimited generated images and provides generic image templates (but does also allow uploaded images to be the framework for the word cloud). Download a png file of the word cloud image, but also capture the URL for that particular word cloud so the participant can see the interactive version of their transcript if they wish.
• email the word cloud image (png file) and the transcript (word or pdf file) to the participant; include the URL link to the interactive word cloud; include a reminder for the completion of the phase 2 digital artifact with a soft deadline suggested within two weeks of the interview
• 2nd pass: while waiting for the artifact, review the video and transcription while coding the conversation in NVivo; making observational notes before, during, and after this part of the process.
• within one week of the interview, send a gift card from Chapters/Indigo to the participant with a message of thanks, including a gentle reminder to complete the digital artifact in the coming week (maybe I need to separate these two messages so as not to appear to be ‘coercive’)
• 1st pass: once the artifact is sent, review immediately in case there are questions or clarifications needed; if not, send email of thanks with an indication that they will be sent the preliminary analysis of the data once it is written which will happen several months from now.
• 2nd pass of the artifact – render in some way for use/integration in NVivo and code
• complete research journal notes at multiple points through this process – I have an overarching journal document that is both specific and non-specific to capture thinking and details along the way. I also keep notes in a participant specific document where observations or considerations that are unique to that particular interview or artifact are captured.
• keep backup copies of all files on a flash drive – I’m doing this frequently and often so I won’t risk losing any of this work should a catastrophic event happen with this laptop.
• between these interviews and process tasks, i am reaching out to the next possible participants – at this point I have a commitment to participate from 5 people and have a spreadsheet where I’ve gathered the names of over 25 possible participants, as suggested or named by those I’ve already interviewed. This additional spreadsheet has key contact information as well as links to accounts or locations of digital activities.

So far, these are my processes. I have yet to get into the deeper analysis of interview and artifact objects or codes. I know that my notes should also be incorporated into that analysis. I hope to find time in the coming week to do a first pass at this deeper analysis from the materials from these first four participants. I keep coming back to the words ‘lived experiences’ and thinking about CMDL that may be reflected and/or evident in the works created or talked about. Lots more reflection and action to come. This is only the beginning of this exciting research.