PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH SAMPLE

A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF LESBIAN AND GAY PEOPLE IN LEADERSHIP ROLES: HOW

PERSPECTIVES AND PRIORITIES SHIFT IN THE WORKPLACE AS SEXUAL ORIENTATION EVOLVES

THROUGH SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS

Justin Moore University of San Francisco, just10moore@gmail.com

ABTRACT

The queer community’s presence continues to increase in the United States, while more individuals become visible

throughout workplaces. An increasingly diverse workforce leaves organizations struggling to leverage the knowledge and

experience lesbian and gay leaders bring to discussions. Limited research informs organizations of the strategies lesbian

and gay people in leadership roles use to navigate their ascension into their positions, while managing the disclosure of

their sexual orientation and professional identity. This qualitative, phenomenological study involved recruiting 15

participants through purposeful, homogeneous sampling processes and snowball sampling, identifying cisgender lesbian

or gay people in leadership or managerial roles, with a minimum of 5 years of experience, who are 50 years of age and

older. Data analysis revealed seven key findings: (a) coming out involves disclosure and concealment strategies, (b)

identity includes self-care and integrating personal and professional life, (c) social change establishes new norms that

cultures adapt, (d) discrimination occurs most frequently through the “lavender ceiling” and microaggression, (e) the

workplace culture is most affected by leaders and policies, (f) activism is critical to the advancement of equity, and (g)

Supportive leadership involves mentoring and building a professional network. Through social constructionism theory and

queer theory, this dissertation aimed to understand the key findings from the data-collection phase. The conclusions from

this study highlight the impact the gay-rights movement of the 1970s and the AIDS crisis of the 1980s had on creating a

generation of activist leaders. Further, workplace climate plays a significant role in disclosure decisions. Leaders of the

lesbian, gay, bisexual, iii transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community aged 50 years and older tend to follow a passive-

disclosure process and use a mask of professionalism to conceal their sexual orientation. Organizations have several

recommended approaches to create an inclusive and open workplace for the LGBTQ community.
 Data Collection

The researcher adopted the qualitative research focus to: Locate the observer in the world … [and] to make the world

visible” through a set of practices during data collection, “empowering people to share their stories, hear their voices, and

minimize the power relationships that often exist between the researcher and participants. (Creswell, 2013, pp. 43, 48) To

learn about the lived experiences of participants in this study, the researcher conducted one-on-one interviews, allowing

for maximum privacy and increased opportunity for full disclosure.

In a phenomenological study … the objective of the interview is to elicit the participants’ story … the

researcher/interviewer presents herself as the listener and … asks probing questions to encourage the participant to

elaborate on the details to achieve clarity and to stay close to the lived experience. (Starks & Trinidad, 2007, p. 1375) The

process of collecting the data followed the recommendations of Creswell (2013), beginning with an initial, short screening

interview through phone or video conference between the researcher and participants. This process established rapport

with participants and created an understanding of the study and how their participation would impact the research

findings.

During the initial screening, the researcher discussed the purpose of the study and the expectations of participants during

the interview process. Additionally, the initial screening tool served as a way to elicit demographic information: age,

race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, job position, and region. The 109 researcher used the demographic

information collected through the screening tool to build a pool of potential participants that the researcher employed to

select the final participants of the study. Following the initial screening, the researcher sent an informed-consent form (see

Appendix B), details of the study, and a request for a date for the first interview to participants selected for the study. The

researcher conducted each in-depth interview in person or through a video-conferencing tool, recording each interview for

later review and transcription between June 2017 and August 2017. At the start of the first interview, the researcher asked

participants to provide a pseudonym to identify him or her for the remainder of the study in transcripts and in the analysis.

The researcher provided the option for the use of a pseudonym to all study participants to provide anonymity in their

interview data and a space for participants to speak freely about their experiences in the workplace. Some participants

chose to use their legal name, whereas others selected a pseudonym. The in-depth interview followed a formal set of

questions (see Appendix C) with allowance for unscripted, informal follow-up questions used for clarification or further

probing into an experience that provided a more precise insight into the phenomenon being studied. Rumens and Kerfoot

(2009) reported, “the interviews were semi-structured, tape-recorded, and generally lasted between two and three hours,
which allowed the men to describe their general experiences of work in rich detail” (p. 771). The researcher felt

compelled to set aside ample time for the interview to fully explore each participant’s experiences with the phenomenon.

Leonard (1989) highlighted the importance of ensuring participants’ lived experiences received full exploration: “nothing

can be encountered without reference to 110 our background understanding.

Every encounter entails an interpretation based on our background” (p. 47). Understanding participants’ background—as

it informs their view of the phenomenon—is critical to developing the essence of their experiences. The researcher

conducted the interviews in-person or through a video-conferencing tool, depending on which format most agreed with

the interviewer’s and each individual participant’s schedule and location. The follow-up interviews allowed the researcher

and the participant to clarify any missing information or questions that arose in interviews. Following the second

interview, the researcher had the conversations transcribed and provided each participant a copy to review for accuracy

and ensure the researcher captured the intention of the responses during the conversation. If any issues arose that called

for clarification, the researcher collaborated with participants, scheduling subsequent interviews to allow for the

development of an accurate reflection of the intent of the participant. Starks and Trinidad (2007) commented,

“phenomenological analysts seek to capture the meaning and common features, or essences, of an experience or event” (p.

1374). Allowing participants to review the transcripts of each interview ensured the researcher captured an accurate

depiction of their experiences prior to analysis. Once each participant approved the transcript of the interview, the

researcher made the information available for analysis. The researcher included approvals of the interview transcripts by

participants in the appendices for review. In addition to the audio recording of each interview, and subsequent transcripts,

the researcher participated in memoing: a process in which the researcher writes a reflection following each interview to

capture immediate reactions to the

information shared by each participant. Memoing allows the researcher to “explore 111 hunches, ideas, and thoughts and

then [take] them apart, always searching for the broader explanations at work in the process” (Creswell, 2015, p. 441).

Further, Starks and Trinidad (2007) stated, Memos also serve the function of establishing an audit trail, whereby the

analyst documents her thoughts and reactions as a way of keeping track of emerging impressions of what the data mean,

how they relate to each other, and how engaging with the data shapes her understanding. (p. 1376) The researcher also

used these memoranda as a part of the data-analysis process. Data Storage Creswell (2013) discussed key principles of

storing data gleaned from the interview process, including the following: • Keep a backup of all files. For this study, the

researcher maintained a backup of files on a local hard drive and a cloud-based application. • Maintain the anonymous
identity of participants in all documentation associated with the study. The researcher accomplished this by maintaining

pseudonyms on all files. Further, in accordance with the requirements of the University of San Francisco Institutional

Review Board (IRB), the researcher kept any data participants provided in this study confidential unless legalities forced

disclosure. The researcher kept informed consent forms, participation information, and all data in a secure, cloud-based

datastorage platform and local hard drive. The researcher restricted access to interview recordings to only the researcher, a

transcription service, and the three members of the 112 dissertation committee. Additionally, the researcher codified the

participants’ names and information through a pseudonym to maintain confidentiality. To ensure participants’

confidentiality, the researcher kept personal information—such legal name and contact information—in a cloud-based

data-storage platform, away from participants’ pseudonym and data collected during the interviews. The researcher

intends to destroy the informed-consent forms and audio files in 5 years of this study, but intends to indefinitely keep the

interview transcripts (filed under a pseudonyms).

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5428&context=open_access_etds
 ETHNOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH SAMPLE

An Ethnographic Study of Intermediate Students from Poverty: Intersections of School and Home ty: Intersections of

School and Home

Shiela G. Rector Portland State University

Abstract

The achievement gap in American schools between middle class students and students from poverty is well documented.

This paper outlines the findings of a study designed to explore the experience and conscientization of struggling students

from poverty. The argument will be made that poverty can be viewed as a culture and that this view may shed significant

light on the dynamics of the achievement gap. Further, using the construct of poverty as a culture provides real life

applications that have the potential to impact the achievement gap. The study explored the lived experiences in a public

school setting of intermediate students from poverty, hoping to capture their voice and insights. The research utilized a

Critical Pedagogical Approach to attempt to understand why American schools struggle with these populations and what

could be done to address the achievement gap

Data collection.

Ethnographies are a type of qualitative research that focuses on the culture of a group (Creswell, 2005). In this type of

research the focus is on understanding the behaviors and beliefs of the group being studied. Unlike other research designs,

ethnographies draw more on the everyday experiences of both the study group and the 47 participant researcher.

Specifically, in a critical ethnography, study participants are encouraged to be an active part of collecting the data.

Triangulation, a critical element to any research project (LeCompte & Schensul, 2010), was provided by multiple

interviews, surveys, student records, recordings of study group meetings and participant researcher field notes. By

examining the targeted students from both an internal and an external view, the participant researcher hoped to gain a

balanced picture of their school experience and the major elements that influence it. Using an example adapted from

LeCompte and Schensul (2010) Table 1 provides a table of the data collection matrix planning outline (p. 188) that gives

specific details about the type of data that might have been collected, how it related to the research questions and how it
might have been analyzed. For the purposes of this study the questions outlined in Table 1 became the framework for the

data analysis. Those questions are: What do I want to know?, Why do I need to know this?, What kind of data should I use

to answer my research question?, Where or from whom would I obtain these data?, and How would I analyze this data?

Over the course of the study and into the data analysis phase, this original planning matrix changed into a summary sheet

of twenty-four elements (Appendix J). The collected data was reviewed looking for evidence that related to these

elements. At times one element might show up from a variety of data sources while other elements may not have had any

evidence from any of the data sources. Following the planning 48 matrix chart below (Table 1), the specific data

collection methods the participant researcher used will be described.

Researcher field notes. In this study, the researcher field notes were a primary source of information. This participant

researcher kept a field journal that recorded her impressions, thoughts and experiences throughout the course of the study.

As stated by LeCompte and Schensul (2010), “The basic tools of ethnography use the researcher’s eyes and ears as the

primary mode for data collection” (p. 2).

Researcher field notes.

In this study, the researcher field notes were a primary source of information. This participant researcher kept a field

journal that recorded her impressions, thoughts and experiences throughout the course of the study. As stated by

LeCompte and Schensul (2010), “The basic tools of ethnography use the researcher’s eyes and ears as the primary mode

for data collection” (p. 2). Ethnographers are not limited to data collection during specific times as is true in an

experimental study, but any experience, casual conversation or observation may be drawn upon to make meaning of the

situation being studied while the ethnographer is in the field.

Field notes were recorded after formal meetings of the study group. Impressions of the study participants, interpretations

of comments by study participants, further questions that arise for exploration or study, and the participant researcher’s

own intellectual and emotional responses to the session were documented. In addition, field notes were made as the field

researcher happened upon other conversations or insights. This participant researcher was an ongoing member of the

environment in which the study took place, giving her access to casual conversation with students, teachers and parents. In

addition, as part of the participant researcher’s job tasks, she sat in on meetings and conferences where study participants
or similar students, could be the focus. Other impressions or understandings were included from these daily activities

during the course of the study and became a part of the researcher’s field notes. 55

Video recordings.

At each meeting of the study group, video recordings were made. While many researchers might have used this data

collection method by transcribing the recordings verbatim, for the purposes of this study, they were used more as backup

data to enhance the participant researcher’s field notes. LeCompte and Schensul (2010) suggest, “another reason for using

multiple sources of data is to make sure that if one dataset or source proves to be unreliable or incomplete, others will

provide the information needed to answer each research question posed” (p.180). Having recordings allowed the

participant researcher to go back and examine particular comments that helped to clarify what a participant said or their

intended meaning. In this way, the recordings were used to verify and enhance the field notes of the participant researcher,

but they were used more for accuracy than a primary source of data.

Archival or cultural artifacts.

Study participants’ report cards and other school records were examined. Although not a primary source of data, these

archival documents shed light on the history of the students’ struggles in school and in many cases led to greater

understanding. Report cards in particular were examined in more detail. In addition to grades, report cards had teacher

comments that were mined for shedding light on research questions. The participant researcher analyzed report card

comments, looking for insight into how the study participant was viewed within the school culture. State or other testing

was examined as secondary sources of information. Specific scores were not the focus, but the participant researcher

looked more for the history of 56 school challenges, when they began, what interventions were put in place, and the

overall school response. While these data may be seen as archival, this researcher also perceived these documents as an

example of cultural artifacts from the school culture which, along with the home culture, was one of the two major

components of the study.

Written responses from study participants.

Originally, it was planned that students would complete written responses at the end of each study group session.

However, once groups started it became apparent that the study group could not cover everything in the lesson plans. In

addition, students did not seem agreeable to completing written responses. This may have been because they are not

confident writers or because they just didn’t want to do a task that seemed too much like academic work. Therefore,
written responses were not part of the collected data. In addition, the homework routine paper that students were asked to

take home was completed by only one student.

Surveys.

The participant researcher conducted two sets of surveys during the course of this study. The first set of surveys were an

attempt to document the concerns, issues and attitudes of the student’s struggle in school from the viewpoint of the

student (Appendix A), the parents (Appendix B) and the teacher (Appendix C). The second set of surveys was given to

students (Appendix D), parents (Appendix E) and teachers (Appendix F) at the end of the study to allow them to reflect on

their experience in the study and to share any final thoughts. All of the student surveys and eleven of the parent end of the

study 57 surveys were completed interview style. One parent completed the survey in written form and one parent did not

complete the end of the study survey because she had moved and was unable to be contacted. This decision was made to

allow for a richer response than was received in the initial surveys. When filling out the surveys as a written document,

answers tended to lack detail. By allowing study participants to answer verbally, they gave more detailed responses.

Teachers completed the end of the study survey in written form. Surveys were analyzed for evidence that correlated to the

elements outlined in Appendix J.

Interviews.

In addition to the surveys at the beginning and the end of the study, the participant researcher met with each participant

(student, teacher and parent) during the course of the study face to face. These interviews focused on the issues of poverty

and how they may be affecting the schooling experience of the study participants. In addition, these interviews served to

both support and challenge the initial theories of the participant researcher. The literature that had been examined as the

basis of this study as well as her own personal and professional experience had led this participant researcher to believe

that poverty is a distinct culture that can impact a student’s school experience. Could this be exposed in interviews with

the study participants? Do these study participants see an impact of poverty on their lives? What level of awareness do

they have? Some guiding questions are included in Appendix G, but additional questions or topics may have arisen during

the course of the interviews. With participant permission, interviews were recorded but only as a way to accurately check

what was shared and to back up notes of 58 the interview. Interviews were not transcribed word for word although some

specific quotes were transcribed and used.

GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH SAMPLE

Being There:A Grounded-Theory Study of Student Perceptions of Instructor Presence in Online Classes William G.

Feeler University of Nebraska--Lincoln, bfeeler@midland.edu

The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of experienced individual online students at a community college

in Texas in order to generate a substantive theory of community college student perceptions of online instructor presence.

This qualitative study used Active Interviewing and followed a Straussian grounded-theory design to guide the collecting

and coding of interview data in order to identify emerging categories and generate substantive theory. The researcher

collected data through interviews with 16 online students, all of whom had taken at least four online courses at a

community college. A constant comparative analysis of the data generated a substantive grounded theory, the Theory of

Establishing and Sustaining Instructor Presence to Enable Student Learning. This emergent theory states that the

perception of instructor presence results from the student-instructor relationship, that it is established and sustained

through four phases of instructor activity and student response: the conditional phase in which student and instructor

respond to perceived needs, especially the need for flexibility, by choosing an online course (Hotel in Tahiti); the phase in

which the instructor through course design and welcoming activities invites the student to full participation (Bienvenidos);

the phase in which the instructor sustains presence by fulfilling the commitments of the previous phase (Cats in

Sombreros); and, finally, the phase in which the instructor may shift from strong instructor presence using direct

instruction to lesser presence facilitating interaction and using indirect instruction while the student becomes a more

active learner and develops greater self-directedness and self-teaching (Kick It Up a Notch). The theory also presents a

process definition of instructor presence and offers an explanation for the relationship between the instructor roles of

active instruction and facilitation. The study recommends further qualitative research into perceptions of students in other

regions, of students at other levels of study—including baccalaureate and graduate students, and of students who are less

successful in online course work.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) emphasized the need to make data collection rigorous in qualitative research; thus, it is

important that an entire interview be conducted within a strong but flexible plan (see Sunstein & Chiseri-Strater, 2012, p.

225). I chose to use interviews with online students for data collection for three reasons:  to be able to respond flexibly to

student observations with follow-up questions sensitive to word choices and the direction of the narrative production;  to

elicit narratives that illustrate emerging concepts and reveal tacit and hidden perceptions; and  to pursue deeper

revelation, even to encourage respondents to assist in the making of meaning. Data collection strategy for this research

investigation consisted of in-depth interviews with 16 community college undergraduate students who had taken a

minimum of four online classes.

The in-depth interview strategy embodies the research genre of “individual lived experience,” “relying on a single primary

method for gathering data” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 61). Interviews with students, or respondents, attempted to

achieve what Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater (2012) call “collaboration” between interviewer and respondent in the spirit of

a “friendly talk” (p. 219). A good interview is not just asking questions and recording answers. Rather it is “researching

people” (Sunstein & Chiseri-Strater, 2012, p. 219), and it involves listening and asking for clarification and delving

deeper into discussion or explanation. It is “close and personal” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 62) and involves a time of

moving into another person’s 62 world in order to see things from the perspective of the other.

It takes place in a shared space in which both interviewer and respondent affect the process of data collection. Within the

space shared with the respondent, the qualitative researcher is a participant observer (Marshall & Rossman, 1999).

Holstein and Gubrium (1995) said that interviewers “are deeply and unavoidably implicated in creating meanings that

ostensibly reside within respondents” (p. 3). In this investigation, I personally conducted interviews and interacted with

the respondents, either in face-to-face meetings or telephone conversations. I obtained IRB approval both at University of

Nebraska—Lincoln and at the community college that granted permission for the student interviews. My recruitment

letter fully communicated to respondents the purpose of the study, the procedures for both researcher and respondents, and

the respondents’ ability to withdraw from participation at any time and for any reason. During an interview, a researcher

may observe body language or tone of voice or level of emotional intensity; the researcher should include such
observations in the field notes or memos, which become part of the artifacts of the study along with the transcripts of

interviews.

The interviewer must listen well, use good personal interaction skills, frame questions well, and use gentle probing to

elicit valuable and detailed responses (Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Sunstein & Chiseri-Strater, 2012). Moreover, the

interviewer needs to communicate “that the subjective view [of the respondent] is what matters” (p. 110). The interviews

approximated “elite interviewing” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 113) inasmuch as subjects were chosen somewhat for

their expertise: undergraduate students who have had at least four online courses. The researcher sought to explore and 63

describe the perspectives and perceptions of students who have spent enough time in online education to have had a

variety of experiences, to have developed some ideas about how they think online instruction should be conducted, and to

have studied enough online to have gotten past the confusion and frustrations of beginning online students dealing with

unfamiliar technology and other new challenges.

The recruitment letter, in fact, even explained to the respondents that they had been chosen somewhat for their

“expertise.”

The Active Interview.

This study used the Active Interview theory developed by Holstein and Gubrium (1995), whose purpose was to create a

“conceptual sensitizing device” to enable interviewers as researchers to capture both the “hows of social process” and the

“whats of lived experience” (p. 5). The active interview is a research process for exploring the reality of subjects and is

distinguished from interrogation, as used, for instance, in a criminal investigation. Holstein and Gubrium (1995)

disavowed the view of a research interview as something akin to “prospecting”—a process used to gain information, to

learn what a respondent knows. They argued that an interview conversation is not “a pipeline for transmitting

information” (p. 3). Rather it is a “social encounter” and the “productive site of reportable knowledge itself” (p. 3). And

they rejected the view of the respondent as passive and simply a “vessel for answers” (p. 7). In the active interview, they

explained, both interviewer and respondent are active participants; and both are engaged in the making of meaning. The

interviewer is “unavoidably implicated” in the process of creating meaning (p. 3), and respondents are seen not as

containers of knowledge to be tapped but as “constructors of knowledge in collaboration with interviewers” (p. 4). 64

Holstein and Gubrium (1995) described the active interview as “interpretive practice” (p. 16). It is a collaborative

conversation in which both interviewer and respondent engage in making meaning and turn their attention to how
meaning is made as much as to what is said, the content. “Reality is constituted,” they say, “at the nexus of the hows and

the whats of experience, by way of interpretive practice” (p. 16). The active interview is “improvisational” and

“spontaneous,” yet “structured—focused within loose parameters provided by the interviewer” (p. 17). Finally, it is a

“conversation” that seeks above all to “cultivate” the respondent to flesh out “narrative territory” (p. 76). The activated or

enlivened respondent, instead of just “telling” what is known, is part of the process of making meaning. The respondent

“transforms the facts and details” and “pieces experiences together, before, during, and after occupying the respondent

role” (p. 8). In this view, the respondent is assigned “competence”—that is, the respondent is accorded respect as someone

capable of producing a narrative. The active interviewer has no comport with an attitude such as that in the earlier

example in which the ability of students to evaluate instructors was dismissed. The active interviewer is seeking to draw

out the respondent’s story that will reveal his or her perspective or even multiple perspectives. Perhaps a respondent is

incompetent to answer questions that come from concepts outside that person’s perspective—such as a child answering a

question about parental disciplinary methods or a student filling in bubbles about an instructor’s ability to maintain

student interest. However, in the active interview, the researcher is concerned above all else with the perspective that

cannot be attained through the questions about preconceived categories—For instance, in the perspective of the child or

student who can tell a story that will provide enlightenment. How the story is organized 65 or pieced together or

elaborated becomes as important as what is said. The respondent is valued as an interpreter and constructor of meaning,

because he or she is invested “with a substantial repertoire of interpretive methods and stock of experiential materials” (p.

17). Because the respondent is assumed to be competent in the active interview process, subjects who might otherwise be

marginalized are given voice. Holstein and Gubrium (1995) maintained, thus, that “all kinds of people, not just the

educated or well-heeled, were competent to give credible voice to experience” (p. 22). The active interviewer is more than

someone who simply asks a set of predetermined questions and probes for complete answers. Holstein and Gubrium

(1995) cited researchers (Cannell, Fisher, & Marquis, 1968; Converse & Schuman, 1974) who have found that much of

what interviewers say after an initial question goes beyond the predetermined questions (p. 38). Thus, they maintained

that the researcher/interviewer should be conscious of being implicated in the production of meaning and should

purposely control the interviewer role. The key for the interviewer is to “orient” himself or herself to the process, not as a

mere questioner recording answers from a passive subject, but as someone who becomes activated as interviewer and

someone who activates the respondent. Both must be “organizers” and “constructors” of meaning. (p. 19). In fact, the

interviewer “interjects” (p. 77) himself or herself into the conversation to “activate, stimulate, and cultivate” the
respondent’s “interpretive capabilities” (p. 17). The interviewer must also provide precedence and perspective, with a goal

to “incite or encourage respondents’ narratives” (p. 77). The central role, then, of the active interviewer is to “activate”

“narrative production” (p. 39). 66 In activating narrative production, the interviewer has several tasks that coincide with

the general task of asking questions (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995):  to “provoke,” at times to “suggest” “narrative

positions, resources, orientations, and precedents for the respondent to engage in addressing the research questions” (p.

39);  to “set the general parameters for responses”—both encouraging and curbing answers within the research topic (p.

39);  to offer possible relevant conceptualizations or perspectives for consideration  “to direct and harness the

respondent’s constructive storytelling” (p. 39);  to introduce the interview in such a way as to prepare the respondent’s

orientation to the topic and to guide the respondent’s thought connections between the topic and experiences to be used in

narrative production;  to use every aspect of the interview, including transitions, as an aid to “urging” a “unique

interpretive position” (p. 44);  to gather background information and use it to make data collection “more productive,

incorporating indigenous interpretive resources, perspectives, and landmarks into their inquiries” (p. 45);  to listen well,

even to provide an “audience” (p. 28) to a narrative production by using “mutual attentiveness, monitoring, and

responsiveness;” and, further,  to “engage the respondent, working interactionally to establish the discursive bases” to be

used by the respondent to provide pertinent narratives (p. 47).

The Importance of Narrative.

To accord respect to a respondent due to the capability of telling his or her story indicates that the key element to be

sought in the 67 interview is narrative. The interview is, after all, a narrative production, and the respondent is envisioned

as a story-teller. Holstein and Gubrium (1995) were not suggesting that respondents make up stories or that they be

encouraged to do so. Rather, they said, “The improvisational narrative combines aspects of experience, emotion, opinion,

and expectation, connecting disparate parts into a coherent, meaningful whole” (p. 28). The narrative is the respondent’s

relating of experience and also a way of interpreting experience. In an active interview, the respondent “becomes a kind of

researcher in his or her own right, consulting repertoires of experience and orientations, linking fragments into patterns,

and offering ‘theoretically’ coherent descriptions” (p. 29). In this role as researcher/collaborator, the respondent may even

provide “indigenous coding” (p. 56), with or without the prompting of the interviewer.

Asking the Questions.

you think about . . .’ or as demanding and specific as ‘On a scale of 1 to 10, tell me how satisfied you are with . . .’” (p.

28). The questions and prompts are framing devices for the respondent/narrator to use in characterizing and interpreting

experiences. Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater (2012) recommend three important approaches to interviewing:  expecting the

unexpected,  asking a limited number of closed questions to gain insights into respondents and their backgrounds, and 

asking primarily open questions during the interview itself. The unexpected in an interview can occur when the

interviewer allows respondents to “speak for themselves” and listens while they tell about their own lives. The interview

68 must “be both structured and flexible at the same time” (Sunstein & Chiseri-Strater, 2012, p. 220). The interviewer

must be flexible enough to listen even when an answer may seem off-course—because an unexpected, and key, answer

may be embedded in the conversational track the respondent is following. Holstein and Gubrium (1995) insist that the

interviewer must even intercede to help the respondent to consider alternative perspectives and concepts. Rather than

trying to suppress all assumptions or biases, the interviewer is better off to express them and give respondents a chance to

add new perspectives in interacting with the interviewer. Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater (2012) maintained: “Rather than

ignore our hunches, we need to form questions around them, follow them through, and see where they will lead us” (p.

221).

Closed Questions.

Closed questions are questions that call for a yes-or-no answer or multiple-choice answer or require a simple information

answer. Questions like these tend to be conversation-stoppers because there is little reason for elaboration beyond the

immediate answer. There is a place for closed questions in interview research, though: they can help the researcher to gain

knowledge about the respondent’s background, history, and interests in such a way as to enable the interviewer to begin

taking the perspective of the respondent (Sunstein & Chiseri-Strater, 2012). Holstein and Gubrium (1995) call this type of

question “fixed format” questions (p. 52). As the researcher in this project, I acknowledged the limitation of closed

questions, yet I devised a short set of closed questions to gather background information and to help prepare for the

questions that would be used to probe more deeply. 69

Open Questions
. Open questions are designed to encourage respondents to communicate their perspectives in a freer conversation.

Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater (2012) recommended questions that elicit narrative responses:  Tell me more about the time

when. . . .  Describe the people who were most important to. . . .  Describe the first time you. . . .  Tell me about the

person who taught you about. . . .  What stands out for you when you remember. . . . (p. 222) Questions like these

transfer control of the interview in large part from interviewer to respondent, or informant. Holstein and Gubrium (1995)

spoke of “enlivening” the respondent by providing an “active” role in the process of making meaning. At the point of

enlivening, they maintained, the respondent “not only holds fact and details of experience but, in the very process of

offering them up for response, constructively adds to, takes away from, and transforms the facts and details” (p. 8).

Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater (2012) emphasized that open questioning must be linked with an array of skills that make up

good listening: body language, eye contact, and attentiveness that communicate focused interest in what the respondent is

saying; hearing comments to the end without interruption; verbal acknowledgements, follow-up questions that emerge

from participant responses, encouragement to extend responses and relate experiences—and, of course, attentive hearing.

Similarly, Holstein and Gubrium (1995) spoke of “mutual attentiveness, monitoring, and responsiveness” (p. 47) and a

heightened level of activeness that calls for the interviewer to work “interactionally to establish the discursive bases from

which the respondent can articulate his or her relevant experiences” (p. 47). 70 The interview itself should be conducted in

an informal, conversational style so that the student respondent will be as comfortable as possible. Highly technical

language should be avoided, and the interviewer should allow and even encourage respondents to frame responses in their

own way (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995; Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Sunstein & Chiseri-Strater, 2012). A key idea is to

encourage respondents to formulate their own concepts and responses through relating their experiences. Open

questioning shifts the focus from requested information to an invitation to respondents to explore their experiences and

thoughts and to verbalize their perspectives in a revealing way

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=cehsedaddiss
 CASE STUDY RESEARCH SAMPLE

Title: The Starbucks Experience: A Case Study of Starbucks Corporation

Author: Neeraj Purohit

Abstract: This case study explores the success factors behind Starbucks Corporation, one of the largest coffeehouse chains

in the world. The study used a case study approach, collecting data through interviews with Starbucks employees,

customer surveys, and analysis of company documents. The analysis focused on several key areas, including Starbucks'

business model, brand strategy, customer experience, and employee engagement. The study found that Starbucks' success

can be attributed to its focus on creating a unique customer experience, strong brand identity, and employee

empowerment. The study concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for other businesses looking to

emulate Starbucks' success.

Reference: Purohit, N. (2019). The Starbucks experience: A case study of Starbucks Corporation. Journal of Business

Case Studies, 15(1), 47-56.

Note: This case study can be found in the "Journal of Business Case Studies" and accessed through various academic

databases such as ProQuest.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

organization, including store managers, baristas, and executives. These interviews provided insight into Starbucks'

business model, brand strategy, customer experience, and employee engagement

Customer surveys: The researcher conducted surveys of Starbucks customers to gather data on their perceptions of the

company's products, services, and overall experience. These surveys helped to identify key drivers of customer

satisfaction and loyalty.

Analysis of company documents: The researcher analyzed a variety of company documents, including annual reports,

financial statements, and marketing materials. This analysis provided additional insight into Starbucks' strategies,

performance, and brand identity.

By using multiple data collection methods, the researcher was able to triangulate the data and provide a more

comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to Starbucks' success. The use of interviews, customer surveys,

and document analysis also allowed the researcher to capture both internal and external perspectives on the company.
 NARRATIVE INQUIRY RESEARCH SAMPLE

Title: "The Entrepreneurial Journey: A Narrative Inquiry into the Experiences of Women Entrepreneurs"

Authors: Susan Marlow, Deirdre O'Reilly, and Wendy G. Smith

Abstract: This narrative inquiry study explores the experiences of women entrepreneurs as they navigate the challenges

and opportunities of starting and growing a business. The study used semi-structured interviews to collect data from 16

women entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom, from a range of industries and stages of business development. The

interviews were transcribed and analyzed using narrative analysis techniques to identify themes and patterns in the

participants' stories. The analysis focused on the participants' experiences of entrepreneurship, including their motivations,

challenges, successes, and support networks. The study found that women entrepreneurs faced a range of challenges,

including balancing work and family responsibilities, accessing funding and resources, and overcoming gender

stereotypes and bias. The study concludes with recommendations for policy makers and support organizations to better

support women entrepreneurs and address the systemic barriers they face.

Reference: Marlow, S., O'Reilly, D., & Smith, W. G. (2017). The entrepreneurial journey: A narrative inquiry into the

experiences of women entrepreneurs. International Small Business Journal, 35(1), 45-63.

Note: This business narrative inquiry study can be found in the "International Small Business Journal" and accessed

through various academic databases such as SAGE Journals.

of Women Entrepreneurs" is semi-structured interviews. The researchers conducted face-to-face or telephone interviews

with 16 women entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom. The interviews were designed to be open-ended and flexible,

allowing participants to share their experiences and perspectives in their own words. The interviews were recorded and

later transcribed for analysis. The researchers used narrative analysis techniques to identify patterns and themes in the

participants' stories, focusing on their experiences of entrepreneurship, including their motivations, challenges, successes,

and support networks.

CONTENT ANALYSIS

Title: "Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Media: A Content Analysis of Fortune 500 Companies' Twitter

Communications"

Authors: David M. Woehr, Heather A. Price, and Phillip J. Keeney

Abstract: This content analysis study explores the use of social media by Fortune 500 companies to communicate their

corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. The study analyzed the Twitter communications of 100 Fortune 500

companies to examine how they used Twitter to communicate their CSR practices, the themes and topics that were

addressed, and the level of engagement with stakeholders. The analysis found that companies used Twitter primarily to

communicate their philanthropic activities, but also addressed other CSR themes such as environmental sustainability and

ethical business practices. The study also found that companies with high levels of engagement on Twitter tended to

communicate a wider range of CSR themes, and that engagement was positively related to company size and financial

performance.

Reference: Woehr, D. M., Price, H. A., & Keeney, P. J. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and social media: A

content analysis of Fortune 500 companies' Twitter communications. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 499-512.

Note: This business content analysis study can be found in the "Journal of Business and Psychology" and accessed

through various academic databases such as JSTOR and SpringerLink.

of Fortune 500 Companies' Twitter Communications" is content analysis. The researchers collected data by analyzing the

Twitter communications of 100 Fortune 500 companies. They reviewed and coded tweets to identify the themes and

topics addressed, the use of specific language and framing, and the level of engagement with stakeholders. The data

analysis involved both quantitative and qualitative techniques to identify patterns and themes in the data. Specifically,

they used descriptive statistics to summarize the frequency of themes and topics addressed, and qualitative content

analysis to identify patterns in the use of language and engagement with stakeholders.