College students as catalysts for social change: a case study

Data Collection

I was first introduced to the group in 2004 and have collected information about the founders and the group since that time, allowing a longitudinal data source of several years. I used multiple sources of information in my data collection. Yin (1989) recommends collecting information in six areas: “documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observations, and physical artifacts” (p. 85).

In completing a review of the archival information available and analyzing data from documents, I reviewed SLP information such as mission statements, visioning notes, brochures, marketing and training materials, as well as historical documents, including newspaper articles. Olson (1982) discusses the descriptive nature of case studies and suggests that a case study can “show the influence of personalities on an issue and include vivid material-quotations, interviews, newspaper articles, and so on” (p.138 139).

In addition, as suggested by Harper (1994), photographs, film and video were used as data sources. The group produced a video called “Everything Intangible,” which was analyzed for examples of the Founders involvement. I also examined a Facebook group that had been developed and several “blog” sites by SLP members as well as an electronic message that was sent out weekly from one of the college chapters. Merriam (1998) states a caution in that “researchers need to remain alert to the variables of electronic communication” (p. 129). Yin (1989) further cautions: “Basically, a case study involves an inference every time an event cannot be directly observed” (p. 43). Given these cautions and to avoid unsubstantiated inferences, I flagged any trends and followed up with the founders for verification rather than simply relying on the websites for information. In addition I set up a “Google alert” that sent me any newspaper articles that mentioned this group so I had current articles readily available for my research.
Interviews

In addition to document analysis, the primary data for this study came from 27 interviews held with the four founders of the group and other stakeholders. The interviews ranged from half an hour to two and a half hours in length. I interviewed the four founders three times and spent one day with each of them observing their interactions. I also conducted one group interview with the founders at the end my research. The first interview with the founders included a highly structured set of questions in order to understand their backgrounds (see Appendix B). The two subsequent interviews included some formal questions and follow up questions based on observations and document review at the beginning, with the remainder of the interviews being more open-ended. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. I provided each interviewee a copy of his or her transcript, and requested feedback for content and accuracy. The interview transcripts along with the documents and field notes from observations form the body of data that I analyzed.

Initially I planned to interview all of the parents of the founders and did end up interviewing two sets of parents; however, this did not prove to be valuable to my research other than the parents sharing their obvious pride in their children. The role of family members within the organization did end up emerging as a category.

My final interviews with the four included a group interview. The purpose of this group interview was member checking and following-up on specific themes and questions that emerged from the individual interviews and document review. Having spent a considerable amount of time with them it was still interesting to see how they interacted as a group and how they responded and contributed to each question. The founders use a great deal of humor in their interactions with each other and also are very aware of each others strengths.

Patton (2002) explains qualitative research as “what it means for participants to be in that setting, what their lives are like, what’s going on for them, what their meanings are…” (p. 1). In order to be in the “setting,” I was involved in four observations. The first observation was held at the SLP summer retreat in Dansbury, Wisconsin, in August 2007, which included all of the college chapter leaders. I attended this for one day, spending eight hours observing the group. The second observation took place during a fall conference held at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. This conference provided training and included selecting bus routes for the Make a Difference service trips. I spent a seven-hour period observing the founders during this day. I took extensive notes which I recorded in a field journal. Some examples of this include descriptions of the activities, comments from the participants that related to issues raised in the initial interviews, and personal reflections on group dynamics. I was careful not to interfere in the dynamics of the activities, though I was aware that the students knew they were being observed. My third observation was during the winter retreat held in Gilbert, Minnesota, and took place over a three-day period. My final observation occurred during a Board of Directors meeting held at the SLP office. In addition, I observed three of the founders for one day as a “shadow,” attending meetings with them and observing any interactions they had that particular day along with conducting the first set of interviews. I did not “shadow” Nickers as he was working for a corporation. All of these observations occurred in the natural settings of the group and produced the best opportunity to develop an emic perspective.

I primarily assumed two roles with this research: Observer as participant and researcher participant. According to Adler and Adler (1994), the role of observer as participant is to “observe and interact closely enough with members to establish an insider’s identity without participating in those activities constituting the core of group membership” (p. 380). I attended three development meetings to observe the interrelatedness of the SLP founders with the volunteers who make up the development committee. I was asked to serve on this committee, so I was in a dual role as a participant observer, of which the group was fully aware. Cheek (1996) describes qualitative research as a negotiated position from which to view reality. The role of the qualitative researcher “is to explore the speaking about, and representations of that reality.” From my role as a participant observer I was able to explore this reality from a firsthand perspective.

Another way that I solicited data from the founders was through a weekly journal. I started out asking them to just write about issues they had dealt with during that previous week to see what patterns might emerge. The four founders found this too ambiguous, so I created a list of questions to which they responded. The “question of the week,” as they came to be known, took place for a period of six months and did allow me the chance to follow up on emerging insights and refine my questions. However, I had mixed response to this method of data gathering as I believe the founders found the task onerous at times. Some of the responses were deep and insightful and some were short and curt. Mackenzie indicated that it was easier for her to answer questions verbally versus in a written response. This methodology was used to ask questions regarding experiences that were instrumental in the founders’ persistence and understanding issues related to sustaining and expansion of the group, one of my original research questions. My hope in using this methodology was to get more of a sense of the daily and weekly issues the founders were facing rather than just “snap shots” from my interviews. If the responses would have remained more of a weekly journal and reflection, I believe it would have been more valuable. In the end I believe it was perceived as a weekly “chore.”

I also adapted a technique in these questions called “the examen” from the Ignatian Examen (Linn, Fabricant Linn & Linn, 1995) to ask a question once a month in my weekly journal request. These questions included the following; this week what gave you the most joy or what caused the most stress? What gave you energy or drained you of energy? What provided consolation or desolation this week? This was used as a technique from another discipline to see what patterns presented themselves. Unfortunately it did not produce significant findings of relevance.