Adivinaciones Intuitivas

Data was collected primarily through interviews conducted at the study site. Fieldwork entails direct and personal contact with study participants in their own

et al., 2007; Patton, 2002). For a qualitative researcher, approaching fieldwork without the constraints of predetermined categories contributes to the depth, openness and detail of the experiences of the participants (Patton, 2002). The researcher is the main

instrument in qualitative research and his/her skills are very critical (Richards & Morse, 2007; Patton, 2002). The researcher’s skills ensure the quality of the data, the

interpretations of the results and the proposal of the theory (Patton, 2002; Richards & Morse, 2007).

A fieldwork research design frequently involves collection of data from different sources, sometimes by different methods, within a natural setting. Data most commonly takes the form of recorded words, which may include field notes, interview transcripts, and diaries and/or written observations (Creswell, 2007; Locke et al., 2007). Use of a variety of data collection methods allows for triangulation of data, a cross-checking of information to ensure accuracy (Locke et al., 2007). Triangulation, not only resolves discrepancies in data collection, it also allows for follow-up when authenticity of sources needs to be established (Locke et al., 2007).

There are several triangulation techniques. This study utilized data triangulation and investigator triangulation. Data triangulation entails the use of many data sources in a study, while investigator triangulation entails the use of several different researchers and evaluators who can bring different perspectives and challenge the primary

researcher’s propositions (Patton, 2002). Data triangulation was achieved by conducting face-to-face interviews, reviewing relevant documentation, reviewing demographic surveys and listening to audio-recordings.

Investigator triangulation was achieved by having regular meetings and conference calls with the researcher’s consultant and chair. The researcher remained mindful of her biases throughout the data collection and analysis process. The researcher also followed up with the study participants to correct for errors in data collection and analysis. Finally, the researcher engaged in the process of journaling and memoing to explicitly highlight her biases and assumptions.

The researcher collected data from participants using in-depth, face-to-face, semi- structured interviews in a secured, private setting in the study site. Open-ended interview questions were used to allow participants to tell their stories freely. Open-ended interview questions enabled the researcher to capture participants’ perspectives without restriction by rigid questionnaire categories (Patton, 2002). Unlike closed-ended questions, more flexible questions allowed the researcher to capture participants’ narratives in their entirety, instead of within a strict set of guidelines or rules that predetermine the relevancy of the data. Thus, constraints on what participants could or could not discuss during the interviews were minimal. Interview questions were selected based on their consistency with the researcher’s goals and to serve as a basis for additional questions that might contribute to a more detailed narrative.

Audio tapes were used to record the interviews, so that accuracy of the data collected could be triangulated and accessed at a later time. Follow-up interviews were conducted once the first round of data analysis was completed. Given that the average LOS in the RTF is 9-12 months, the researcher did not foresee completion of follow-up interviews as problematic, unless the participant refused to participate, was discharged

from the facility against medical advice (AMA), or was removed from the RTF through the legal system.

The researcher completed the entire study in roughly 6 months. Data was transcribed by Fingers4Hire Transcription Services on a weekly basis. This allowed for the quick turnaround of transcribed initial interviews, so that the researcher could complete the second interviews quickly. Only 2 participants were interviewed for their second interview in the community, as they were discharged from the facility shortly after the initial interview. As discharge was already anticipated for these two participants, the researcher had obtained prior consent to reach out to them afterwards to complete the second interviews. They were interviewed in the privacy of their homes and awarded the $25 at that time.

Overall, data was collected and recorded through completion of the initial demographic survey, semi-structured interviews and access to the admission packet, which provided extensive documentation of the participant’s mental health history, family dynamics, trauma and loss history, child protective service and/or legal involvement. This information allowed for cross-checking of data provided on the demographic survey and in the interview. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and analyzed manually by the researcher.

Along with collecting and recording data, it was important for the researcher to manage the data appropriately. In this study, data management began with bracketing prior to data collection. The interviews were conducted, examined, and coded throughout the interview process, beginning after the completion of the first five initial interviews. The researcher constructed codes and themes to organize and collate data collected. The

researcher kept a reflective journal, along with memoranda, to clarify the data, and made sure to set aside her own biases regarding the findings. The data was organized,

transcribed (by transcription service), and analyzed manually by the researcher herself, with the assistance of her research assistant.

Preservation of the confidentiality of data was prioritized and ensured by assigning a pseudonym name to each subject. Other relevant information was secured through the process of redaction. The researcher kept documentation in a secure-locked cabinet. The computer and storage device were secured with “sign-on” passwords. Data were backed-up and stored in a separate location from the original. For example, data were both saved on the desktop and flash drive, in case either became lost, damaged or otherwise unable to be recovered, so that the data were rendered irretrievable from either location. The flash drive was secured in a locked cabinet to which only the researcher had access. To further ensure confidentiality and privacy of the data, the researcher utilized a university approved encrypted USB flash-drive retrieved from the Information Resource and Technology (IRT) Department at Drexel University. Additionally, the audio tape recordings and transcripts were stored separately from demographic surveys

(information) and consent forms, which indicated participant identity. The only

individuals that had access to the demographic surveys (information) and consent forms were the researcher, research assistant and dissertation chair. This process of securing data was explained to all participants prior to obtaining their consent.