The Qualitative Report 2012 Volume 17, Article 60, 1-27
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/frels.pdf
Interviewing the Interpretive Researcher:
An Impressionist Tale
Rebecca K. Frels
Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA
In this manuscript, we describe the use of debriefing interviews for
interviewing the interpretive researcher. Further, we demonstrate the
value of using debriefing questions as part of a qualitative research study,
specifically, one doctoral student’s dissertation study. We describe the
reflexivity process of the student in her study and the debriefing data that
were coded via qualitative coding techniques. Thus, we provide an
exemplar of the debriefing process and the findings that emerged as a
result. We believe that our exemplar of interviewing the interpretive
researcher provides evidence of an effective strategy for addressing the
crises of representation and legitimation for researchers and instructors
of qualitative methods courses alike. Keywords: Debriefing Interviews,
Interviewing the Interview, Qualitative Interviews, Reflexivity,
Representation, Legitimation, Bias
Qualitative researchers strive authentically to capture and to relay the genuine
experiences of people through writing a text of social accounts, which, as noted by
Denzin and Lincoln (2005), creates the “inescapable problem of representation” (p. 19).
Further, considering the encounter that occurs between the researcher(s) and
participant(s) in interpretive research, Moustakas (1994) focused on the wholeness of the
qualitative research process rather than on its parts to provide deeper meanings of
experiences rather than to provide explanations of experiences. Indeed, the story of the
research relationships, both between participant and researcher and between the
researcher and his or her data collection process is influential in coloring and
contextualizing the written account of the research story. In fact, Ellis and Bochner
(2000) identified the researcher as a subject and postulated that becoming a “vulnerable
observer” involves creating a personal story of “what went on in the backstage of doing
research” (p. 741).
Reflexivity, in some form, has been advanced as an important means for critically
evaluating the whole qualitative research process (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).
According to Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009), reflexivity typically involves the “complex
relationship between process of knowledge production and the various contexts of such
processes, as well as the involvement of the knowledge producer” (p. 8). As noted by
Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2007):
The reflexive researcher’s perspective begins with an understanding of the
importance of one’s own values and attitudes in relation to the research
2
The Qualitative Report 2012
process. This recognition begins prior to entering the field. Reflexivity
means taking a critical look inward and reflecting on one’s lived reality
and experiences; this self-reflection or journey can be extremely helpful in
the research process….Reflexivity is the process through which a
researcher recognizes, examines, and understands how his or her social
background and assumptions can intervene in the research
process….Reflexivity goes to the heart of an in-depth interview; it is a
process whereby the researcher is sensitive to the important ‘situational’
dynamics that exist between the researcher and the researched that can
affect the creation of knowledge. (pp. 129-130)
Reflexivity can be enhanced using a number of strategies (e.g., keeping a fieldwork
journal; Kleinman & Copp, 1993). A particularly useful technique is peer debriefing
(Arber, 2006). Broadly speaking, peer debriefing involves the researcher providing
information about the implementation and evolution of a research study to an impartial
colleague (i.e., “disinterested peer”; Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 308), who critically
reviews this information at one or more stages of the research process and provides
feedback regarding the appropriateness of the data collection and data analysis
procedures, the trustworthiness and completeness of the researcher's findings, and the
overall progress of the investigation. By “disinterested,” the colleague (i.e., debriefer)
does not have a stake in the direction of the findings. Also, the peer debriefer might help
the researcher to plan the next methodological steps. As noted by Lietz and Zayas (2010),
“Peer debriefing can help to promote reflexivity allowing researchers to become more
sensitized to the effects of their socio-political position” (p. 196). Moreover, peer
debriefing is particularly useful for “exploring aspects of the inquiry that might otherwise
remain only implicit within the inquirer's mind” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 308).
Recently, researchers have advocated a more structured form of peer debriefing,
which involves the practice of the interpretive researcher serving as an interviewee in a
series of formal debriefing interviews with the researcher(s)—a technique known as
interviewing the investigator (Chenail, 1997, 2011) or interviewing the (interpretive)
researcher (Onwuegbuzie, Leech, & Collins, 2008)—for the deeper understanding of not
only the research process, but also the research relationships that ensue through
interviewing (Nelson, Onwuegbuzie, Wines, & Frels, 2012). In particular, Chenail (2011)
outlined how the interviewing the investigator technique can serve as a useful initial step
“to create interview protocols that help to generate the information proposed and to
assess potential researcher biases especially if the investigator has a strong affinity for the
participants being studied or is a member of the population itself” (p. 255). According to
Chenail (2011), the interviewing the interviewer approach can also help the investigator
to (a) identify personal feelings that come to the fore during the questioning, (b) develop
greater appreciation for the challenge of revealing all one knows about a topic, (c) make
explicit perspectives that might bias the investigator in the study, (d) learn the merits of
being patient in the interviewing process; (e) develop an appreciation of feelings of being
and not being heard; (f) appreciate the vulnerability of the research participant; and (g)
identify a priori assumptions about the research participants. Moreover, Chenail (2011)
contended that the interviewing the investigator technique uniquely helps the researcher
to appreciate what it feels like to be a research participant in the study and, as a result,
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
3
increases the researcher’s sensitivity to the research participant(s) in a study, which, in
turn, can yield more ethical and responsible research.
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) established a debriefing protocol to be used by
qualitative researchers to address the internal processes experienced by the researcher.
This protocol includes a series of questions to be posed to the researcher to promote
reflexivity (i.e., “the process of critical self-reflection on one’s biases, theoretical
predispositions, preferences, and so forth”; Schwandt, 2007, p. 260), catalytic validity
(i.e., the extent to which a given research study empowers and liberates a research
community; Lather, 1986), and paralogical legitimation (i.e., the component of
legitimation that reveals paradoxes; Lather, 1993); and to address researcher bias (i.e.,
when the researcher has personal biases or a priori assumptions that he or she is unable to
bracket [i.e., suspend]; Husserl, 1931) and authenticity criteria (i.e., criteria that stem
directly from naturalistic/constructivist assumptions; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). In addition,
debriefing interviews provide the opportunity for the researcher(s) to evaluate initial
hunches to illuminate the plausibility and trustworthiness of findings and interpretations.
Specifically, Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) conceptualized the following:
The purpose of collecting these data is to help interpretive researchers to
identify and to reflect on the degree to which their biases potentially might
have influenced the various facets of the research study (e.g., formulating
the research question, implementing data collection, and conducting
analytical procedures), might have changed over the course of the
investigation in general and interview process in particular, and might
have affected interpretations of findings (i.e., interview data) and
implications stemming from the findings (e.g., formulating analytical
generalizations). In addition, debriefing interviews provide an opportunity
for the researcher to evaluate initial hunches. The process of the researcher
explaining and/or verifying initial hunches to the debriefing interviewer
might illuminate to the researcher the plausibility and trustworthiness of
these hunches in the conduct of the research. Despite the multiple benefits
of debriefing or interviewing the researcher, however, to date [the formal
and routine use of] this technique has not been advocated by qualitative
researchers. (p. 3)
According to Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008), the process of debriefing involves the
qualitative researcher being interviewed on one or more occasions by a person who does
not have a direct stake in the findings of the study, but who has good interviewing skills,
understands the qualitative research process, is experienced at conducting qualitative
research, and understands the underlying research topic. Even though dissertation
chairs/supervisors are deeply invested in their students’ growth as emergent researchers
and have a stake in students completing their dissertations, as seasoned researchers and
mentors, they are prime candidates to serve as debriefers if they have the following: (a)
they have established a trusting relationship with their students; (b) they are familiar with
the qualitative research process or can consult one or more other members of the
committee who have this expertise; (c) they understand the underlying research topic and
can consult one or more other members of the committee with expertise on the topic; and,
4
The Qualitative Report 2012
most importantly, (d) they do not have a stake in the direction of the findings. Debriefing
interviews, which are conducted in a private place where they can be recorded (i.e.,
audiotaped or videotaped), ideally would take place via a face-to-face interview so that
the debriefer can observe and document nonverbal cues, such as proxemic (i.e., physical
distance between interviewer and interviewee), kinesic (i.e., body movements or
postures), paralinguistic (i.e., all variations in volume, pitch, and quality of voice),
chronemic (i.e., use of pacing of speech and length of silence in conversation), optics
(i.e., use of eyes during the interview), and linguistics (i.e., language form [e.g.
morphology, syntax, phonology, phonetics], of language meaning [i.e., semantics,
pragmatics], and/or of language in context [e.g., evolutionary linguistics, historical
linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, language acquisition,
discourse analysis]) (Gorden, 1980; Nelson et al., 2012). However, depending on the
interpretive researcher’s preference or availability, the debriefing interview could involve
a virtual interview that is conducted either synchronously (e.g., chatrooms, Skype,
Second Life, and Short Message Service [SMS] via mobile telephones) or
asynchronously (e.g., email, websites) using some form of Internet connection.
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) recommend that the debriefer read the data transcripts from
the study and conceptualize potential questions to ask the interpretive researcher that are
open-ended and that yield information regarding the researcher’s thoughts, perceptions,
experiences, and feelings.
As a guide, Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) developed an array of debriefing interview
questions that the debriefer could ask the interpretive researcher. These questions were
categorized into two types: (a) questions based on researcher bias and (b) questions based
on Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) principles of authenticity criteria. The questions pertaining
to researcher bias are based on the following eight concepts: (a) the researcher’s
experience with interviewing, (b) the researcher’s understanding of the participant(s), (c)
the researcher’s depth of knowledge of non-verbal communication, (d) how the
researcher interprets the findings from the interviews, (e) thoughts regarding how the
study affected the researcher, (f) concerns regarding the impact of the study on the
participants, (g) ethical or political issues that might have come up at any stage of the
research, and (h) the researcher’s identification of problems that stemmed from the
interviews. Table 1 presents a sample question for each of these eight concepts. The five
principles of authenticity criteria are: fairness, ontological authenticity, educative
authenticity, catalytic authenticity, and tactical authenticity. Table 2 presents a definition
of each type of authenticity criteria, alongside a sample question. Indeed, it is the
promotion of authenticity criteria that make Onwuegbuzie et al.’s (2008) debriefing
interviews unique among the array of debriefing techniques. In particular, these
debriefing interviews encourage the researcher to monitor the degree to which
participants and stakeholders are empowered to act on the increased understanding that
emerged from the study (tactical authenticity). These criteria, as a whole, help to promote
social justice, thereby helping to ensure not only nonmaleficence but also beneficence.
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
5
Table 1. Possible Debriefing Topics (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2008) and Sample Questions
Relating Directly to Bias
Topic
Sample Questions
Researcher’s interview
background/experience
How would you characterize your training/experience (e.g.,
clinical, applied) conducting interviews?
Researcher’s
perceptions of the
participant(s)
Which participant responses did you feel were the most
helpful?
In what ways did you think they were the most helpful?
Perceptions of
nonverbal
communication
To what degree do you think the pacing of the conversation
(e.g., length of time between question asked and answered)
impacted the dynamics of the interview(s)?
Interpretations of
interview findings
To what degree were the findings similar or dissimilar to
your thoughts prior to conducting the interview(s)?
Impacts on the
researcher
In what ways, if any, do you feel you are a different person
now that you have conducted the interview(s)?
Impacts on the
participant(s)
In what ways, if any, do you feel your
gender/race/culture/class/hierarchy/status/age
influenced the participant’s responses/comments during the
interview(s)?
Ethical or political
issues
Unexpected issues or
dilemmas
What types of ethical issues did you encounter during the
interview(s), if any?
What political issues did you encounter before, during, or
after the interview(s)?
At what point did an issue or situation arise in the study
that you were not expecting? How did you respond?
What dilemmas did you encounter during the study? How
did you handle the dilemma?
Note: This table was adapted from Onwuegbuzie, Leech, and Collins (2008). Reprinted with kind
permission of Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie.
The Qualitative Report 2012
6
Table 2. Definitions and Sample Questions Relating to Guba and Lincoln’s (1989)
Authenticity Bias
Authenticity Criteria
Definition
Sample Question
Fairness
Researcher’s ability to
value and to honor the
evaluation process
To what extent do you think you
have exercised balance in
representing the thoughts,
perceptions, feelings, concerns,
assertions, and experiences of all
participants?
Ontological
authenticity
Criteria for assessing an
increased level of
awareness among
participants in the
research study
What strategies have you used to
monitor your own developing
constructions (i.e., progressive
subjectivity) and document the
process of change from the
beginning of the interview
process/study until the end?
Educative
authenticity
Extent to which
participants understand
and appreciate diverse
value systems of others
To what extent do you think your
own empathy and insights of the
participants
evolved during the course of the
interviews?
Catalytic authenticity
Appreciations and
constructions that lead to
actions or decisions by the
participants
To what extent do you think that
participants’ newly evolved
constructions and appreciations of
the position of others have led to
some action(s) taken or
decision(s) made by the
participants?
Tactical authenticity
Degree of empowerment
of participants and
stakeholders to act on
increased understanding
that emerged from the
study
To what extent are all participants
more skilled than they were
previously (e.g., since the study
began; since the last interview) in
understanding and using power
and negotiation techniques?
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
7
Spillett (2003) recommended that future works in the area of peer debriefing
interviews should include examining the process of peer debriefing sessions and
evaluating the outcomes of specific peer debriefing activities. However, although several
authors have provided guidelines for conducting peer debriefing activities (e.g., Ely,
Anzul, Friedman, Garner, & Steinmetz, 1991; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993;
Glesne & Peskin, 1992; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008a; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Spillett,
2003), an extensive review of the literature revealed that only a few authors (Figg,
Wenrick, Youker, Heilman, & Schneider, 2010; Hail, Hurst, & Camp, 2011; Spall, 1998)
have documented the process of peer debriefing sessions and/or evaluated the outcomes
of specific peer debriefing activities. Moreover, Spall’s (1998) seminal article was the
only article identified in which peer debriefing sessions were examined of doctoral
students who completed their dissertations. Yet, as surmised by Bencich, Graber, Staben,
and Sohn (2002), “At the beginning of the dissertation research process, doctoral students
cannot see the end, nor can they imagine how they will get there” (p. 289). Thus, making
the process of peer debriefing in dissertation research more public would be beneficial to
doctoral students. Indeed, as declared by Anfara, Brown, and Mangione (2002) “in all the
discussions of validity in qualitative research there is one major element that is not
sufficiently addressed—the public disclosure of processes” (p. 29). Similarly, Constas
(1992) concluded: “Since we are committed to opening the private lives of participants to
the public, it is ironic that our methods of data collection and analysis often remain
private and unavailable for public inspection” (p. 254). Thus, documenting the process of
peer debriefing sessions and the outcomes of specific peer debriefing activities is
consistent with the call of both Anfara et al. (2002) and Constas (1992) for making the
qualitative research process more public by “publicly disclosing decisions made during
the research process” (Anfara et al., 2002, p. 30), making transparent the methods and
processes “by which raw data were collected and the processes by which they were
compressed and rearranged so as to be credible” (Lincoln, 2001, p. 25), making the “data
and explanatory schemes as public and replicable as possible” (Denzin, 1978, p. 7), and
meeting the “qualitative ethic” of “substantiat[ing] their [qualitative researchers’]
interpretations and findings with a public accounting of themselves and the processes of
their research (Constas, 1992, p. 35). Also, we believe that such transparency would be
beneficial to advisors/supervisors and mentors of doctoral students conducting qualitative
dissertations, as well as qualitative research instructors.
With this gap in the literature in mind, the purpose of this manuscript is to
describe and to provide an exemplar of how one researcher (the first author) utilized the
framework of interviewing the interpretive researcher (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2008) to
obtain a better understanding of her role in the process of research and, moreover, the
concept of legitimation in her dissertation study of adult volunteers as mentors in a
school-based mentoring setting. This exemplar of the debriefing process involves a
qualitative researcher for which the debriefing interviews facilitated: (a) the personal
journey of the researcher(s) over the course of the study, (b) the relationship of the
researcher(s) with the participant(s), and (c) the relationship between the researcher(s)
and the data. To address not only the critical elements of reflexivity and trustworthiness
in qualitative research but also one researcher’s personal journey toward self-awareness
in the research process, this manuscript is organized as follows: (a) Background of the
Researcher’s Dissertation, (b) Debriefing Interviews and Legitimation, (c) Personal Use
The Qualitative Report 2012
8
of Debriefing Interviews, (d) Emergent Themes from the Debriefing Interviews using
Constant Comparison Analysis, (e) Emergent Themes from the Debriefing Interviews
using Discourse Analysis, and (f) Conclusions. To this end, the remainder of this
manuscript is written in a narrative style by the first author/researcher and documents her
personal experiences, thoughts, feelings, and interactions associated with her dissertation
research and her efforts in addressing legitimation. More specifically, this narrative style
represented an impressionist tale—similar to those described by Cooper, Brandon, and
Lindberg (1998). Van Maanen (1988) developed the concept of impressionist tales as an
effective way of writing about fieldwork. Drawing inspiration from impressionist artists
(e.g., Monet, Renoir, and Van Gogh), Van Maanen (1988) conceptualized impressionist
tales as representing a way to capture noteworthy fieldwork experiences. According to
Van Maanen (2011), “impressionist tales present the doing of fieldwork rather than
simply the doer or the done. They reconstruct in dramatic form those periods the author
regards as especially notable and hence reportable” (p. 102). In the present work, the
impressionist tale was utilized as an analytic technique for understanding how one
doctoral student made sense of her experiences as a qualitative researcher and developed
her research identity. It is our hope that by reading the impressionist tale of one
researcher’s journey to address legitimation through debriefing interviews, qualitative
researchers will have another exemplar that illustrates how powerful this technique is for
promoting reflexivity and, in turn, increasing awareness.
The Exemplar
Background of the Researcher’s Dissertation
The purpose of my study was to explore selected adult mentors’ perceptions (n =
11) and experiences of working with students (i.e., the dyadic mentoring relationship) in
a school setting (i.e., school-based mentoring [SBM]). My research explored the efforts
of these adults as a type of helping relationship as the facilitator of change to impact both
the mentor and the mentee. Interestingly, recent studies of mentoring have been
negatively impacted due to the problem of retaining mentors over a period of time
(Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, Feldman, & McMaken, 2007; Karcher, 2008). By
illuminating ways that mentors perceive their experiences, roles, purposes, approaches,
and the dyadic relationship, my study built on the foundation of best practices in SBM.
Therefore, through individual interviews and observations of adult mentors with their
mentees, I sought to recognize the relational factors in the mentoring dyads.
Debriefing Interviews and Legitimation
Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007) documented particular strategies to evaluate and
to increase legitimation. Threats to internal and external credibility can occur at one or
more of the following interactive, non-linear, and recursive three stages of the research
process: the research design/data collection state, the data analysis stage, and the data
interpretation stage (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). Using this framework, seven threats
to internal credibility and external credibility of findings emerged that were pertinent to
my dissertation research study: (a) descriptive validity (i.e., the factual accuracy of the
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
9
participant interview responses as documented by the researcher: Maxwell, 1992); (b)
researcher bias (i.e., as defined earlier); (c) reactivity (i.e., involves changes in a
participant’s response[s] that stem from being aware of the fact that he or she is
participating in a research inquiry; Onwuegbuzie, 2003); (d) interpretive validity (i.e., the
extent to which a researcher’s interpretation of a participant’s account represents an
awareness of the perspective of the underlying group and the meanings attached to her or
his words and actions; Maxwell, 1992); (e) catalytic validity (i.e., as defined earlier); (f)
theoretical validity (i.e., the extent to which a theoretical explanation developed from
research findings fits the data and, thus, is credible, trustworthy, and dependable;
Maxwell, 1992); and (g) paralogical legitimation (i.e., as defined earlier). Thus, I created
a matrix notating the threat to internal and external credibility of the findings in my
dissertation process and the technique(s) that I used to address it. Table 3 illustrates the
times that I used the debriefing interview to decrease the threats to internal and external
credibility in my study. As seen in Table 3, the debriefing interviews were an essential
component for addressing all seven threats to internal and external credibility of the
findings in my dissertation research.
Table 3. Threats to Internal and External Legitimation, Methods of Evaluation, and
Examples
Threat to
Credibility
Descriptive
Validity
Internal
and
External
Internal
Method of Evaluation to
Increase Legitimation
Example
Member checking
Audio recordings
Triangulation
Debriefing interviews
Observation data corroborated
interview data
Researcher
Bias
Internal/
External
Member checking
Debriefing interviews
Debriefing revealed my
reluctance as an active member
Debriefing the transcriber
helped verify my themes
Reactivity
Internal
Triangulation
(observations and
interviews)
Debriefing interviews
Cognitive dissonance discovered
in participants regarding
interviews
Understood my research stance
and empowering the participants
Audit trail
Using extreme cases
Debriefing interviews
Audio and video recordings,
transcriptions, files of QDA
Miner, reflection journal
Used bracketing (epoché) with
extreme case
Interpretive
Validity
External
The Qualitative Report 2012
10
Catalytic
Validity
External
Weighing the evidence
(i.e., trusted reporting)
leaving an audit trail
Debriefing interviews
Used my debriefing data to
recognize and find my voice as
researcher
Uncovered convergent and
divergent data
Theoretical
Validity
Internal
Checking for researcher
bias (i.e., debriefing
interviews; journal data)
Debriefing interviews
Used bracketing (epoché)
Debriefing interviews for
awareness
Paralogical
Validity
Internal
Triangulation
Debriefing interviews
Used Greene, Caracelli, and
Graham’s (1989) framework for
mixing
Discovered awareness for
paradoxes in data
Personal Use of Debriefing Interviews
Debriefing interview procedures. Throughout my dissertation process,
reflexivity and preconceived biases were addressed via the debriefing questions presented
in the debriefing interviews, which occurred at four key points during the dissertation
study: one before the completion of the observations and individual interviews of the
qualitative study, one after the observations and individual interviews of the qualitative
study, one during data analysis of the qualitative study, and one at the end of the study.
The debriefer was my dissertation chair, whose interviews lasted between 45 and 60
minutes and took place at various locations (e.g., debriefing interviewers home, at a
research conference)—with the most notable location being the coffee shop near one of
the schools involved in my study, and where I spent a considerable amount of time
contacting my participants, writing entries in my reflexive journal, and the like. Each
debriefing interview was both audiotaped and videotaped.
Analysis of debriefing data. When transcribing the debriefing interviews, I
recognized that over the period of the 6 weeks of data collection, I grew in confidence in
my role as researcher. In addition, the interviews were helpful in my awareness of
researcher responsibility, but the interviews also were helpful for sharing my thoughts
and feelings as the study progressed.
Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007, 2008b) suggested that using different qualitative
data analysis techniques can increase triangulation and that researchers should
systematically select multiple appropriate analysis techniques. Thus, I used two
qualitative data analysis techniques for analyzing my debriefing data. Specifically, I
utilized constant comparison analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), wherein I generated a set
of themes for understanding multiple meanings through a creative process for
determining relationships among emerging codes. In order to triangulate the data
analysis, I also used discourse analysis (Gee, 2005). Discourse analysis focuses on pieces
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
11
of language used in the situation network, recognizing the verbal cues or clues that help
listeners and readers to construe situations in particular ways and not others (Gee, 2005).
As such, discourse analysis was appropriate for my study due to the premise that
“humans construct their realities, though what is ‘out there’ beyond human control places
serious constraints on this construction (so ‘reality’ is not ‘only’ constructed)” (Gee,
2005, p. 113).
The qualitative software QDA Miner 3.2 (Provalis Research, 2009) was used to
organize and to analyze the debriefing data. Using this qualitative software, cell entries
contained transcriptions of data in raw or reduced form that were extracted from the
debriefing interviews. The cell entries were coded and subjected to critical reflections
that involved the search for patterns and processes, taking into consideration threats to
legitimation.
Findings Stemming from my Reponses to the Debriefing Interviews
Two major themes emerged through constant comparison analysis with respect to
the debriefing interviews: (a) Theme 1: the importance of my research stance (i.e.,
transformative-emancipatory research) and (b) Theme 2: my personal experiences and
identity as researcher and counselor. Each of these themes is discussed in the following
sections.
Constant Comparison Analysis Theme 1: The Importance of my Research Stance
A stance that I considered to be appropriate for my study was the transformativeemancipatory stance (Mertens, 2003). According to Mertens (2003), the transformativeemancipatory stance is driven by the researcher who is seeking to conduct research that is
emancipatory, participatory, and antidiscriminatory, and who focuses squarely on the
lives and experiences of underserved and marginalized persons or groups such as women;
ethnic/racial/cultural minorities; individuals with disabilities/exceptionalities; and
members of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual communities. Table 4 illustrates the
transformative-emancipatory stance as it pertains to beliefs and positions. Even though
this research stance was adopted early in my dissertation process, approximately one year
before data collection, through the debriefing interviews and revealed through constant
comparison analysis, it is apparent that the research stance was foremost in my mind.
When writing the background of my study, I recognized that mentees clearly
represent underserved and marginalized persons because, by definition, they are
considered to be at risk for dropping out of school (Big Brothers Big Sisters, n.d.). As
such, I began to research the idea of mentoring as “a relationship wherein the mentor and
mentee benefit from one another” (Barton-Arwood, Jolivette, & Massey, 2000, p. 36).
Further, I utilized a variation of Mertens’s (2003) transformative-emancipatory stance,
which I referred to as the two-way interactive transformative-emancipatory stance,
because persons representing both sides of the relationship were at risk—with the
mentors being at risk for dropping out of mentoring relationships (Rhodes, 2002;
Spencer, 2007), resulting in detrimental outcomes for mentees (Karcher, 2005, 2007).
The Qualitative Report 2012
12
Table 4. A Transformative-Emancipatory Research Stance: Basic Beliefs and Positions
(Mertens, 2007)
Item
Description
Ontology
“There are multiple realities that are socially constructed, but it
is necessary to be explicit about the social, political, cultural,
economic, ethnic, racial, gender, age, and disability values that
define realities. Different realities can emerge because different
levels of unearned privilege are associated with characteristics
of participants and researchers” (p. 216).
Epistemology
“To know realities, it is necessary to have an interactive link
between the researcher and the participants in a study.
Knowledge is socially and historically located within a complex
cultural context. Respect for culture and awareness of power
relations is critical” (p. 216).
Methodology
“A researcher can choose quantitative or qualitative or mixed
methods, but there should be an interactive link between the
researcher and the participants in the definition of the problem,
methods should be adjusted to accommodate cultural
complexity” (p. 216).
Axiology
“Three basic principles underlie regulatory ethics in research:
respect, beneficence, and justice. The transformative axiological
assumption pushes these principles on several fronts. An
explicit connection is made between the process and outcomes
of research and furtherance of a social justice agenda” (p. 216).
Note. Adapted from “Transformative Paradigm: Mixed Methods and Social Justice,” by D. Mertens, 2007,
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, pp. 212-225. Copyright 2007 by Sage.
During my initial debriefing interview, I was cognizant of my research representing a
two-way interactive transformative-emancipatory stance. Before data collection,
regarding research ethics, I was asked by my debriefing interviewer if I might be
prepared to terminate the study to protect the participants. I responded,
Oh. Absolutely important and the same with the mentee; you know,
transformative emancipatory is also to empower… so even like if the
mentee comes up with something and were like to ask me something—I
respond. I'm not interviewing mentees. I'm just observing and if it happens
or a mentor you know. It's always ‘do you know what to do if a stranger
does come, you know certainly. Oh certainly and for a mentor certainly to
know that there's a 911 hotline, you know— did you know that?’ and I
have that information. That's where I can empower.
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
13
Furthermore, I also noted how to anticipate dilemmas and tailored my research questions
so that any response, negative or positive, would feel appropriate for the participants:
It’s in line with the belief systems of mentors because hopefully that, you
know. my research questions are really general; so, my interview
questions are also kind of… very broad. So you know with the belief
system and the follow-up questions—‘so what's your belief system as a
mentor?’ That's opening a big door you know. What or why is a mentor
there? Do they feel the need to protect? Do they even know? So, those
follow-up questions such as, ‘do you know what to do?’ [if your mentee
were in danger] you know, that kind of thing, surely can be built in easily
now that I'm aware of it, so much more easily you know… thinking about
that.
Interestingly, I continued to revisit the idea of empowerment and shared a story
with my dissertation chair in my third debriefing interview. I explained how, at one
participant’s member checking meeting, I was greeted enthusiastically. At this meeting,
she shared a story with me about her week’s event of traveling to her home state, her
sense of empowerment, and the way she believed my study empowered her. She
explained that my study was foremost in her thoughts. Thus, she visited some of the
women who mentored her when she was younger. I disclosed the story she shared to my
dissertation chair in the final debriefing interview:
There were ladies in her life that had mentored her. Well, previously and
in her interview, my probing question to her was: 'So then, I think what
you're trying to tell me is that mentoring is in your blood.' And she
agreed—she said, 'Yea, I guess it is.' And then she went and shared with
the ladies that mentored her and she said that they were just in tears when
she shared her story [being a participant in my study]. It was like a
testimony to them that, 'You mentored me and now I'm mentoring
someone, and I got to share this with someone, and it really empowered
me. And, therefore, I want you to know the power that you put in my life.’
She reiterated and touched my arm to tell me about my study: ‘you did
that.’ She looked me in the eyes and said it twice, ‘you did that.’ I was just
about in tears myself.
Considering how my study influenced my own sense of empowerment, I was surprised
that the mentors seemed so self-sufficient and satisfied, because this was not my personal
experience as a counselor and mentoring program coordinator. Hence, I was personally
impacted by their positive experiences and relationships. I stated,
Well, if you say going native means I want to mentor well I would love to
mentor now. But I don’t really consider that is going native. I loved
mentoring and that is why I studied it. My kids are grown and it's just
really would increase my awareness. I have been a coordinator for mentor
programs for over 5 years and I had no idea what happened in the dyad. I
14
The Qualitative Report 2012
had no idea. So, I'm thinking 'I really want to know what that's like.' I
won't even know till I'm a mentor because I could study it all I want to but
until I walk in those shoes. I won't know and I thought about you know;
Do I want to mentor someone next year? That would be a whole new
study wouldn't it? Again, as a play therapist, it's about nonverbal behavior
and keeping myself not going native. Counselors can do that or if we get
involved with problems that we can’t shed them at the end of the day that
to me is going native where you can't let go of them and you can't really
see the answer; so, I think I've been trained not to do that as a counselor
being a counselor researcher.
With respect to empowering the mentee, I learned that one mentee was scheduled
to read publically her co-authored (with her mentor) and illustrated book Maybelline’s
Birthday to the Grade 1 classes during library time. This was a significant event for the
mentor as she posted the public reading announcements throughout the school and was
discussed excitedly by the mentee during mentoring times. In fact, the book was one of
the primary activities during the dyadic mentoring time. Significant to me, they gave me
a complimentary laser-colored copy and permission to use pictures from the book as part
of my study. I realized that my presence in their making of the book also was significant
to them. Considering my research stance and presence during mentoring times, I drove
the extra 2 hours to attend Meg’s public reading, only to discover that she was ill that
day. Regardless, she was aware of her impact on my study and I believe that furthermore,
she was aware of her empowerment.
Similarly, I sensed my research stance emerge when teachers began to approach
me in the halls to tell me how mentoring impacted the students they taught. I noted in my
reflexive journal that for a teacher, who is typically quite busy during the day, to go out
of his or her way to speak to me and to express enthusiastically that mentoring is working
for his or her student is notable. However, in my experiences during the study, it was not.
Hence, teachers appeared to be inspired by the research at their schools and their
enthusiasm does directly impact students who are mentored and those students yet to be
mentored. Due to the debriefing interviews, I reflected on every aspect of my qualitative
study.
Constant Comparison Analysis Theme 2: My Personal Experiences and Identity as
Researcher and Counselor
Throughout the four debriefing interviews, I was aware of my own role and
identity as a professional school counselor, and considered my training to be an asset in
my research approach (two-way interactive transformative-emancipatory), especially
when considering the observations. In the first interview, the “prebriefing” interview (i.e.,
the interview that takes place before a study begins; Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton,
2006, p. 77), I stated,
Well, it is unnatural, first of all. I am there. That's not natural. Umm, there
are times in my own experience of mentoring that in a school setting,
students were accustomed to come and go people. Like I walk in as
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
15
counselor in the classroom and they keep on doing work. So, if they, if
they somewhat know me, if I could just, you know, at least bridge that, it
becomes more natural. So, instead of who's that lady? Maybe the first time
it won't be natural, but if I'm observing three times. And the second time
oh there's that lady again. And then the third time hopefully I, you know a
fixture in the room [laughter].
When responding to the question: “if one of [the mentees] wants to involve you or tries to
engage you as a researcher, what will you do?”
Good question! [smiling] That's where my play therapy training comes in
because that happens in play therapy sometimes. They want to engage you
in playing and that's not what I'm there to do…so, my response would be
umm you know you know, you know… my job is to sit here and really
watch you what you're doing. So, go ahead and do... I'm not going to…
I'm not going to take myself into what they're doing; I really honor their
setting. You know… I really appreciate that you do— do it, you know you
seem to be expert to this. So that, those boundaries are set.
In addition, due to my preparation through the interviews, I tapped into my counselor
identity and declared,
If I make eye contact with the mentee, I'll just keep the nodding like I'm
with them and listening and not just umm, you know, I guess I don't want
to appear as robotic or just there to observe and robotic. I want to at least
appear that I'm there and it matters to me that I'm there—that I'm honored
to be there. I know that I'm intruding in their private area. That, that...I
really am appreciative.
Due to my personal changes during the six-week period and my role as a
researcher and counselor, the following figure, Figure 1, depicts a role-by-time ordered
matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) This figure is based on Adler and Adler’s (1987)
perspectives of membership roles and the following: (a) peripheral member researcher
(i.e., researchers are those who believe they can develop a desirable insider’s perspective
without participating in those activities); (b) active member researcher (i.e., those who
become involved with central activities of a group and often assume responsibilities
without necessarily fully committing themselves to members’ values and goals); and (c)
complete member researchers (i.e., those who study settings in which they are already
members or with which they become fully affiliated). As seen in Figure 38 [of my
dissertation], I began my research as peripheral member (Adler & Adler, 1987), whereby
I sought to develop an insider’s perspective without participation in group membership.
However, by the end of my study and during member checking, I became very close to
many of the mentors, and my role, on a few occasions, moved from peripheral member
to, reluctantly but nevertheless, an active member researcher during the times the mentors
and/or the mentees sought to engage me.
The Qualitative Report 2012
16
Figure 1. Role-by-time matrix and illustration of membership roles (Adler & Adler,
1987).
Researcher
Counselor
Salient
Characteristic
Quiet presence
Ability to attend
to non-verbal
behaviors
Anticipated
Changes
More comfort
by participants
Realized Changes
Role Changes
Asked by John
Henry to attend
recess with them
Engaged in the dyad
when invited
Participants
might forget
about my
presence
Invited to Molly’s
mentee’s (Meg)
public reading of
their co-authored
book
Empowerment also
might include my own
extra effort to attend
invited functions
Learning the
community
Former teachers of
mentees learned of
my study and
approached me to
inform me of the
impact of mentor
Empower through
allowing the telling of
stories by teachers
approaching me
Comfort with
an observation
checklist
Comfort with an
observation checklist
Invested in the mentees,
looking forward to
seeing them
Recognize and
contain bias
Experienced
closeness with
particular mentors
and mentees
Invested in mentors,
looking forward to
seeing them
Both peripheral and
active member at
different times
Member checking and
follow-up contacts are
made
Membership
Role
Peripheral
member
Peripheral
member
Reluctant active
member
Task
Contacted
mentors and
school leaders to
collect key
consent forms
and schedule
observations for
the dyad
Observations
underway and
my schedule
was defined to
observe 11-20
hours weekly
Observations are
coming to a close
(33 total) and
interviews took place
Week 1-2
Week 3
Week 4-5
Week 6
In the design of the debriefing interview questions by Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008),
it is clear that interpretation and awareness are important for a researcher to consider
throughout key points of a study. As such, I realized the gift that the mentors not only
give to themselves and to their mentees through mentoring, but also the gift I received in
the way of willing participants. I explained this feeling in the following discourse of my
second interview:
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
17
I got a message from Angelina today to confirm that I observe on
Thursday. I know I am very fortunate to have such willing participants. I
keep going back to my research philosophical stance and wonder about the
two-way interactive transformative-emancipatory design. I need to read
more in this area so that I understand it better; the word empower is such a
heavy term that the participants— many of them—seem to be empowered
and not like I had read in the literature that the population of mentors as a
whole are not sticking with mentoring. I have been really thinking about
implications for counselors as I am collecting data because in the schools
that I am observing the counselor is not active in the coordinating of
mentors too little time? I worry that counselors are not effective at
relationships in the schools and think that if mentors can figure it out, then
counselors can learn from them.
Debriefing Interviews and Discourse Analysis
Building Task Significance
Gee (2005) ascertained that situated meanings and values are related to various
places, times, bodies, people, objects, and institutions and, through discourse, specific
language builds significance. For me, in the helping profession, the two-way interactive
transformative-emancipatory research design was empowering. I was impacted by the
consistency of the mentors and recognized that I, too, must honor their routines. Also, I
found very significant my role as a counselor/researcher. For example, I stated in my
second interview,
I think of the word consistency… routines are solid. As a matter of fact,
when I couldn't figure out the scheduling of observations, I tried to get a
few mentors to re-arrange their day. Quickly I learned that I almost
sabotaged my own study! The day and time needed to be consistent and
this seems to be the magical glue for the relationships.
Therefore, the building task of significance revealed that consistency was a valued
attribute in my own worldview, and that I was intuitive in recognizing the value of
consistency and routine for the mentors. In fact, it was interesting to me that I did not pay
better attention to the literature that underscored the importance of consistency and
routines in SBM (Rhodes, 2005). In addition, it was important for me to adjust to their
very systematic schedules for four reasons: (a) data would not have been as real if the
schedules were to change; (b) the dominant themes of consistency would not have
emerged; (c) my role as researcher would not have been authentic; and, most importantly,
(d) I would not have empowered the mentors or mentees by asking for change. Thus, I
recognized Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) catalytic authenticity, whereby my actions
pertained to new constructions and appreciations of the position of others and evolved
during the course of the study. Also addressed was tactical authenticity, whereby
participants and stakeholders are empowered to act on the increased understanding that
emerged as a result of the study and have obtained testimonies from participants and
The Qualitative Report 2012
18
stakeholders regarding the pathway to action (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). In addition, I
realized these points during the period that I became aware of my reluctance to becoming
an active member and teachers began to approach me and engage me in their stories
about mentoring. With this in mind, I identified my evolving role as a researcher.
Building Task Activities
The activities that I undertook were varied, ranging from phone calls, to
scheduling, to speaking with the librarian about using her office for interviews, to my
presence as observer and interviewer. As a school counselor, I have been accustomed to
wearing many hats, and felt comfortable with all of the activities. Also, the school staff
and participants (mentors and mentees) became comfortable with my presence after our
initial meeting. The activity of interviewing was meaningful to me. As such, during the
data collection debriefing interview, I shared the following experience about the
interviews:
This might be off subject, but the [question] that I asked mentors: ‘how
would others describe you?’ Because I'm really trying to look at the
mentors’ point of view, this question took so many mentors aside, you
know they didn’t have any idea! So, another question was when I asked
them to make up a pseudonym. My experience was huge. I never knew
how difficult it would be for someone to make up a name for oneself. I
learned something from that about the importance of interview questions
and things you can learn about participants… I was just going to assign
names. I'm so glad I asked them. It added another piece of really good
descriptive validity because some of them even told me why they picked
the name and I think it kind of goes with what I see flowing through their
interviews.
Through the building task of activities, I recognized that one activity of value to me was
the task for mentors to create their own descriptors for themselves, their dyads, and their
mentees.
Building Task Identities
Through language, people take on particular roles and, subsequently, the role
might then influence their language (Gee, 2005). As noted through the themes emerging
from constant comparison analysis, I was aware of my multiple identities: play therapist,
school counselor, researcher, and guest in the school. Also, the mentors disclosed hidden
identities to me, as recorded by my handheld recorder for my field notes. One example
revealed through language was the identity of John Henry, one of the 11 participants in
my study. I noted,
One of the mentors picked the name 'Knucklehead' for his mentee. So,
why I am not surprised that he picked the name 'Knucklehead' for his
mentee? [laughter] It was just so appropriate and so perfect after observing
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
19
him three, four hours actually because his mentoring sessions would go
way over and he was like so real with his mentee just by the way he
talked.
The above reflection of my time with John Henry increased my awareness of identities to
a new level. In fact, I realized that without the observations, I would not have explored
the many identities of mentors, especially those as humble as John Henry. Another
reflection noted in my journal was the time I called John Henry on the telephone to invite
him to participate in my study. At the conclusion of our conversation, he remarked that
he was not an expert at mentoring and that he was not sure as to what I would learn from
him. At the conclusion of my study, I disclosed to him the impact the observations had on
my data collection and the personal pleasure I experienced knowing him and Junior,
together as a dyad. He was gracious and pleased to have contributed and I listened to him
discuss further his joy of mentoring with Junior, even when he was frustrated. Therefore,
addressing tactical authenticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), it was apparent that we jointly
assessed the degree of empowerment that took place in the study. It was the building task
of identities that paralleled the theme of identity as a school counselor. Hence, I
recognized how my identity helped to create my belief system— especially in the case of
the use of implicit encouragers and the role of John Henry as classroom dad—much like
the role of a school counselor as a classroom advocate and helper.
Building Task Relationship
Gee (2005) described the building task relationship as a negotiating component to
signal what sort of relationship is operative and consequential. The building task of
relationship was the dominant theme through the discourse analysis of my debriefing
interviews and field notes. Over the course of 6 weeks, observing and interacting with the
11 selected mentors, I explained in each of the debriefing interviews that the relationships
I made in the school—with the school principals, the school secretary, the school
librarian, and especially the mentors—were important during data collection. I explained
in the after data collection/before data analysis interview that,
I realize that my relationships have really grown with the mentors. I call
Angelina now and she has a way about her—so casual, so welcoming—
like we have been best friends for a while. I began with each of them as
Ms. This or Mr. That > and I am now moving to first names and cell
numbers sorted in my phone.
Thus, as noted in the role-by-time matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and
illustration of membership roles (see Figure 1), I progressed from a quiet presence to
engagement with many of the mentors, mentees, and school staff. To my surprise, after
my study concluded, I received forwarded inspirational emails from one mentor and
Facebook invitations from two mentors. Therefore, my engagement and feeling drawn
into relationships validated further my understanding of: (a) catalytic authenticity and (b)
tactical authenticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). As such, the forwarding of inspirational
emails and invitations to Facebook extended my understanding of empowerment and a
The Qualitative Report 2012
20
two-way interactive transformative-emancipatory stance. Moreover, the building task of
relationship was the most closely related building task to the focus of my study to explore
dyadic relationships, and revealed relationships connected through many facets (e.g.,
teachers, students, mentors). Hence, I recognized that the mentors were very effective at
relationship building and to the point of building a relationship with me. As a result, I
was deeply impacted by the way our relationship deepened over the course of the study.
Building Task Politics
Gee (2005) recognized that the value people place on the distribution of social
goods is a component of perspective and is conveyed through language. The politics
experience, as noted in my debriefing interviews, included: the power differential
between mentors and mentees; the ways that mentors bridge differences in power,
ethnicity, and gender for stronger relationships; and the general population of mentees,
specifically as an at-risk population. I stated in my final debriefing interview,
First, you know my study is not about mentees but what came out for me
personally is that at risk for these mentees is not just the definition. Well, I
didn't use the TEA [Texas Education Agency] definition—Texas
definition— the public school definition < because it's not broad enough,
umm the mentees who are being mentored in my study well I'm not
studying them but they're often raised by a grandmother an aunt having no
father in the home. So, at risk umm for mentees is a very emotional place.
it could be like one of the fifth-grade girls being slightly overweight and
not exactly fitting into the cool crowd group and she's at risk for a lot of
things, you know: eating disorder, depression, a lot of things. TEA doesn’t
help us here.
Thus, the building task politics revealed the theme of the political positions involved in
the study: researcher to mentor, mentor to mentee, and mentee as an at-risk student in the
school.
Building Task Connections
According to Gee (2005), the building of connections through language involves
the way some connections and not others are negotiated. Thus, I recognized through my
debriefing interviews that it was important to build equal connections for all participants
to have an equal voice. This realization was consistent with my two-way interactive
transformative-emancipatory stance. When asked the question, “So, in what way do you
think you've represented balance in the thoughts, perceptions, feelings, etc. of all
participants?” I responded,
I thought it in all fairness and integrity that I'd show each mentor the
things [on the observation checklist] that I was writing down and I think
that that was another good way to be balanced and check my observations
too because it just verified that information and just also let them know
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
21
exactly what I was writing down. I really, I really feel like I'm looking at
all the observations lining up side by side and triangulating those data with
the interview data to make sure that I'm not missing anything and I am
aware of all thoughts, perceptions, and even the mentors’ input.
However and as previously noted, particular connections were easier to make than were
others. During the third debriefing interview, I described my connections with the
mentees, mentors, and the study when asked the question, “Going back again to the
mentees, I know you didn't connect with them directly, but I guess indirectly. I'm very
interested in their demeanor when they first came in versus their demeanor and how they
left,” I responded by stating,
So, I think and I don't know if that's a good or bad thing but I had learned
that I had to negotiate some of that tension; so, I kind of made myself
more personable. When we would go pick up the mentee together. It's
hard for me to be just to be the girl with the clipboard [laughter]. I felt like
it was too much tension. I almost didn't get to study one match because the
mentee signed consent, but looked like he did not want me there at the
beginning. He didn't say with words, but he was just like ‘mmm...’ and by
the last time I was there he was much friendlier and it was fine. He was
very nice. He said ‘bye, are you coming next time?’ It happened to be my
last time, so I said, ‘No I'm not, but thanks! I really wanted to know what
it was like to be with you and your mentor; so, you really taught me a lot,
thanks. Thanks for letting me see how you guys work together.’ I needed
to let them know about the study all the time. Because how could they be
empowered if they didn't know?
Therefore, through the building task of connections, I recognized that I wanted to connect
to participants in my role as researcher by reassuring participants and creating a
comfortable experience. My identity as a school counselor also was revealed in the above
example through my desire to validate and to honor the research experience with the
mentee. In addition, I found a connection to the data and wanted to provide balanced
representation and opportunity to each participant.
Building Task Sign Systems and Knowledge
Gee (2005) attributed the building task of sign systems and knowledge to ways of
knowing as operative, valued, or disvalued. Through my debriefing interviews, I
recognized that particular sign systems were in place that influenced my observations.
For example, I was asked the question, “How participatory were the actions taken by the
participants?” in my third interview and replied,
I feel like they all fully participated because they just kept doing what they
were doing. Some of them pulled me in a little more than others because
that's their personality and I realize that it’s just not possible for some
people to not pull people in. I noticed that mentors that pulled me in were
The Qualitative Report 2012
22
the ones that pulled everyone around them in. say… um, like John
Henry—he'd walk in a classroom and everybody would say "Mr. John
Henry!" and he would pull everyone in and you know he's just that, that
kind of person that does that. One time he asked, ‘Will you do these math
problems with [my mentee]?’ and I'd be like [laughter] put down my
clipboard and help because that's just the kind of guy that he was so I think
that you know each of my mentors were fully participatory—fully
participatory. Didn't hold back anything.
Thus, the building task of sign systems and knowledge revealed that I found myself
influenced by participation of the mentors. I realized that some mentors were so
personable and effective at influencing others to enter their world. Thus, I integrated
these very personal reactions into data for my study.
Significance of the Debriefing Interviews
When transcribing the debriefing interviews, it was apparent over the period of
the 6 weeks of data collection that the first author/researcher grew in confidence in her
role as researcher. The following sections provide her reflections regarding the specific
usefulness of the formal debriefing interview process.
Authenticity criteria. In the course of becoming a qualitative researcher, Lapadat
(2009) posited the use of a “triumvirate of methodology instruction” (p. 957) wherein
learning involves three main strands: (a) learning what (i.e., familiarity with the language,
concepts, theories, history, debates within the field); (b) learning how (i.e., focusing on a
study, conducting interviews, transcribing tapes); and (c) recognizing doing (i.e.,
engaging and indentifying with the self’s values, emotions, and understanding the human
conditions associated with qualitative research). The formal debriefing interview process
allowed Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) authenticity bias to be spoken aloud in a type of
active process to engage me in my values, emotions, and other human conditions
important in research. As can be seen in the themes that emerged through debriefing
(i.e., importance of research stance and identity as a researcher and counselor), the
authenticity criteria (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) provided a lens not only for a reflexive
understanding, but also for a proactive commitment to beneficence to empower the
participants in my study.
The value of the formal debriefing interviews. As noted by Cunlife (2004), to
become a critically reflexive practitioner involves an integration of content and
reflexivity. By engaging in formal interviews, a new type of integration occurred for me
because my reflexive thoughts were verbalized. In fact, the active consideration of
authenticity bias (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) via the debriefing interviews (Onwuegbuzie et
al., 2008) tapped into what I recognize as a counselor to be facilitative: the value of
storytelling. In fact, Egan (1988) explained that a story “is not just some casual
entertainment; it reflects a basic and powerful form in which we make sense of the world
and experience” (p. 2). Further, in considering the facilitative conditions developed by
Rogers (1956) regarding the counseling process, the initial stage in a verbal exchange
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
23
involves active listening and attending to a person’s story. Likewise, the safe interview
climate established in my debriefing sessions allowed for my self-examination, or what
Rogers (1956) explained to be self-actualization (i.e., to fulfill one’s potential). During
the debriefing interviews, as I verbalized my interpretations of Guba and Lincoln’s
(1989) authenticity criteria, I recognized my active role in the co-creation of my
participants’ stories and the research process. Indeed, the formal debriefing interviews
were more than attending to reflexivity—they also revealed new knowledge/awareness
and increased my understanding of how to self-actualize as a responsible and ethical
researcher. In short, I learned how to value the process of research as well as the product
of research.
Conclusions
In this exemplar, the results emerging from the analysis of the debriefing data
added a deeper meaning to the overall research findings stemming from the participants.
In addition, these debriefing data added rich and thick descriptions of the first
author’s/researcher’s reflective process and representation and legitimation strategies
inherent in her dissertation study. The interviews were helpful in increasing her
awareness of researcher responsibility and provided her the opportunity to share her
thoughts and feelings as the study progressed.
In the design of the debriefing interview questions by Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008),
interpretation and awareness are critical for a researcher to consider throughout key
points of a study. As such, two particular components of Guba and Lincoln’s (1989)
authenticity criteria emerged as being most significant: (a) catalytic authenticity, whereby
actions pertained to new constructions and appreciations of the position of others and
evolved during the course of the study; and (b) tactical authenticity, whereby participants
and stakeholders are empowered to act on the increased understanding that emerged as a
result of the study. We believe that debriefing interviews are critical in qualitative
research and, moreover, should be presented in the write-up of a qualitative study. With
this in mind, we hope that our exemplar of the use of debriefing data presented in one
student’s dissertation study is helpful for qualitative researchers and instructors of
qualitative research courses and beyond in addressing the legitimation components of
qualitative research.
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative
research (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on
stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7),
28-38. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007028
Arber, A. (2006). Reflexivity: A challenge for the researcher as practitioner? Journal of
Research in Nursing, 11, 147-157. doi:10.1177/1744987106056956
24
The Qualitative Report 2012
Barton-Arwood, S., Jolivette, K., & Massey, N. G. (2000). Mentoring with elementaryage students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 36-39.
doi:10.1177/105345120003600105
Bencich, C., Graber, E., Staben, J., & Sohn, K. (2002). Navigating in unknown waters:
Proposing, collecting data, and writing a qualitative dissertation. College
Composition and Communication, 54, 289-306.
Big Brothers Big Sisters. (n.d). Retrieved from
http://www.bbbs.org/site/c.diJKKYPLJvH/b.1539751/k.BDB6/Home.htm
Chenail, R. J. (1997). Interviewing exercises: Lessons from family therapy. The
Qualitative Report, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR32/chenail.html
Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing
instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. The
Qualitative
Report,
16(1),
255-262.
Retrieved
from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-1/interviewing.pdf
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the
rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education
and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-100.
Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative data analysis as a public event: The documentation of
category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29,
253-266. doi:10.3102/00028312029002253
Cooper, J. E., Brandon, P. R., & Lindberg, M. A. (1998). Evaluators' use of peer
debriefing: Three impressionist tales. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 265-279.
doi:10.1177/107780049800400207
Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of
Management Education, 28, 407-426. doi: 10.1177/1052562904264440
Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook
of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Egan, K. (1988). Teaching as storytelling: An alternative approach to teaching and the
curriculum. London, England: Rutledge.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity:
Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 733-768).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1991). Doing
qualitative research: Circles within circles. New York, NY: Falmer.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic
inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Figg, C., Wenrick, M., Youker, C., Heilman, J., & Schneider, C. (2010). Implications and
benefits of a long-term peer debriefing experience on teacher researchers. Brock
Education, 19(1), 20-35.
Gee. J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
25
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gorden, R. I. (1980). Interview strategy techniques and tactics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 11, 255-274. doi:10.3102/01623737011003255
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Hail, C., Hurst, B., & Camp, D. (2011). Peer debriefing: teachers’ reflective practices for
professional growth. Critical Questions in Education, 2, 74-83.
Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., & McMaken, J., (2007).
Making a difference in schools: the big brothers big sisters school-based
mentoring impact study. Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved from
http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/219_publication.pdf
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. L. (2007). Feminist research practice: A primer.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas (W. R. Boyce Gibson, Trans). London, England: George Allen
& Unwin.
Karcher, M. J. (2005). The effects of developmental mentoring and high school mentors’
attendance on their younger mentees’ self-esteem, social skills, and
connectedness. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 65-77. doi: 10.1002/pits.20025
Karcher, M. J. (2007, February). The importance of match activities on mentoring
relationships. National teleconference conducted by the Mentoring Resource
Center. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Karcher, M. J. (2008). The cross-age mentoring program: A developmental intervention
for promoting students’ connectedness across grade levels. Professional School
counseling, 12, 137-143. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.137
Kleinman, S., & Copp, M. A, (1993). Emotions and fieldwork. London, England: Sage.
Lapadat, J. C. (2009). Writing our way into shared understanding: Collaborative
autobiographical writing in the qualitative methods class. Qualitative Inquiry, 15,
955-979. doi: 10.1177/1077800409334185
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a
soft place. Interchange, 17, 63-84. doi:10.1007/BF01807017
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological
Quarterly, 34, 673-693. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00112.x
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative analysis tools: A call
for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 557-584.
doi:10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008a). Debriefing. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage
Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 199-201). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008b). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium
of techniques and a framework for selection for school psychology research and
beyond. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 587-604. doi:10.1037/10453830.23.4.587
26
The Qualitative Report 2012
Lietz, C. A., & Zayas, L. E. (2010). Evaluating qualitative research for social work
practitioners. Advances in Social Work, 11, 188-202.
Lincoln, Y. (2001). Varieties of validity: Quality in qualitative research. In J. Smart & W.
Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 25–72).
New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, L. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62, 279-300.
Mertens, D. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The
transformative-emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 135-164).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 212-225. doi:10.1177/1558689807302811
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Nelson, J. A., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Wines, L. A., & Frels. R. K. (2012, February). A
family systems approach to qualitative interviewing: The therapeutic interview
process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in
quantitative research. Research in the Schools, 10(1), 71-90.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An
oxymoron? Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 41,
233-249. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. , & Collins, K. M. T. (2008). Interviewing the
interpretive researcher: A method for addressing the crises of representation,
legitimation, and praxis. International Institute for Qualitative Methodology, 7, 117.
Provalis Research. (2009). QDA Miner 3.2. User’s guide. Montreal, QC, Canada: Author.
Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press. doi:10.1080/1361126022000002465
Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher
(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 336-347). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogers, C. (1956). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality
change. Retrieved from
http://shoreline.edu/dchris/psych236/Documents/Rogers.pdf
Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models.
Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 280-292. doi:10.1177/107780049800400208
Spencer, R. (2007). ”It’s not what I expected”: A qualitative study of youth mentoirng
relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 331-354.
doi:10.1177/0743558407301915
Rebecca K. Frels and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
27
Spillett, M.A. (2003). Peer debriefing: Who, what, when, why, how. Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 7(3), 36-41.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography (2nd ed.). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Author Note
Rebecca K. Frels is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and
Special Populations at Lamar University. She is a Licensed Professional Counselor
Supervisor, Professional School Counselor, and Play Therapist in the state of Texas. Her
research areas include creativity in counseling, supervision, multicultural counseling,
mentoring, and literature reviews. She has published numerous publications in these
areas along with other methodological topics. Correspondence regarding this article can
be addressed to Rebecca K. Frels, Department of Counseling and Special Populations,
Lamar University, 223 Education Building, Beaumont, TX 77710, or E-Mail:
rebecca.frels@gmail.com
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie is a tenured professor in the Department of Educational
Leadership and Counseling at Sam Houston State University. He teaches doctoral-level
courses in qualitative research, quantitative research, and mixed research. His research
areas include disadvantaged and under-served populations such as minorities, juvenile
delinquents, and children living in war zones. Additionally, he writes extensively on
qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodological topics. Alongside more than 600
conference/keynote presentations, he has had published more than 350 works, including
more than 270 journal articles, 50 book chapters, and 2 books. His current h-index is 47.
He serves as co-editor of Research in the Schools.
Copyright 2012: Rebecca K. Frels, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Nova
Southeastern University
Article Citation
Frels, R. K., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2012). Interviewing the interpretive researcher: An
impressionist tale. The Qualitative Report, 17(Art. 60), 1-27. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/frels.pdf