Figuraciones de lo sobrenatural: la Bruja y Astarot

The methods or the specific means of doing the research that I chose, are the focus group and a series of semi-structured in-depth, one on one interviews. By choosing two different methods, I solicited data from a group of multiple individuals and from single participants and added the element of triangulation of data (Fontana and Frey, 1994). The two methods of data collection I used are generated in very different contexts and those contexts had significant impact on the outcomes and the quality of the data that I collected (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). Both methods are speech events to solicit data by setting a scene for guided conversations, but each is very different based upon the setting, the social context, the participants and the general approach to the speech event (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). The use of the focus group was a way to observe social interaction that would otherwise not be accessible, and interviews provided an opportunity to directly interact with the participants to engage in inquiry about the meaning of their role and identity.

Rationale and Sequence of Methods

In consideration of which technique to implement first and how they fit together, I made the choice to perform the Focus Group first, for three reasons. First, by gathering data within a focus group and experiencing what the group was expressing, I would then be able to learn from the group and enrich my approach to the one on one interviews that followed. The descriptive and interpretive analysis of the focus group informed the one on one interviews. I found that I did not wish to begin the

interviews until I had completed a draft of analysis of the focus group. The second reason had to do with logistical planning. The best place to stage the focus group was just prior to the National Annual Conference which was scheduled in May 2014. Because each of the participants attended the conference, by scheduling the focus group on the afternoon prior to the Keynote Address, I could ensure the chance for highest attendance. Third, it offered me the opportunity to begin data

collection with a panel of seven individuals as a springboard to produce significant volume of data and participant response.

Because of their inherently different approaches I will describe the theory and rationale of each technique separately along with their application to practice. Then I will address the descriptive and interpretative analysis of each method separately, to clearly distinguish how each method contributed to the overall findings related to the cultural knowledge of the participants. Documented textual data obtained from multiple methods maximizes the efforts in the field and enriches the stories of these participants and the construction of a unique interpretation of their culture (Atkinson et al., 2003). The goal was to understand the complexity of their world and by using two techniques, it was my intent to obtain a broader and more a richer description through triangulation (Fontana and Frey, 1994). Overview of The Focus Group

Focus groups derive from two distinct traditions (Thorne, 2016). The first is related to academia, they were originally conducted to facilitate social change in South America and used to foster social reform (Thorne, 2016). The second finds its roots in North America within industry and used in market research. Focus groups were and are still used as integral components of data collection in marketing and media. The one thing that these traditions share is using focus groups as an approach that is interested in understanding group dynamics, to engage socially and to shed light on shared social perspectives (Thorne, 2016). Their essence is exploration of the social component of content, as opposed to the individual perspective.

A focus group is an event that engages individuals in discussion in an attempt to access information through group interaction (Polit & Beck, 2012). When focus groups are convened, the participants are invited to come together to discuss a topic of concern to an investigator. Those who are invited to participate may or may not know each other previously and probably did not have the opportunity to build a rapport (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). Depending upon the mix of personalities, participants may or may not be inclined to speak out due to the nature of the group setting and the fact that they may be in the presence of strangers. The output of the focus group tends to be pragmatic, due to the

interaction and the overall need to sample multiple opinions from within the focus group (Flick, 2009). More recently, in qualitative research, focus groups are used to bring individuals together who may be members of a homogenous group, to discuss an experience that they have or are sharing together (Polit and Beck, 2012) (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). The dynamics of the group provide for data that can be found within an interactive social setting (Flick, 2009). Beginning from an interactionist point of view (Flick, 2009), the focus group creates a social situation that allows participants to engage with one

another in a give and take flow with members feeding off one another to reveal an expanded

discourse that might not have been an outcome of a one on one interview (Fontana and Frey, 1994). In the same vein, the opinions generated tend to represent diversity along a continuum. The focus group allows for individuals to ‘spark off’ one another, in a way triggering thoughts that otherwise might not have been expressed outside of that social context (Rubin and Rubin, 1995, p. 140). Within the context of this group setting, patterns and meanings may be observed from the social interaction and may be considered one of the strengths of this method (Bryman, 2008).

The focus group does yield rich data with a level of complexity that arises out of the social interaction and poses analytical challenges unique to the context of the setting, which will be discussed in the analysis section. As an approach, the focus group contrasts with and serves to complement the in- depth interviewing that engages with individuals in the context of a one on one experience. Rationale for Use of Focus Group

My rationale for choosing a focus group was to gather individuals together, who otherwise would not have the opportunity to be all together at one time. I realized that it offered several benefits related to the process of data collection. By bringing together the focus group, I had created the opportunity to exclusively be a participant observer. I could capture the social interaction among the group while being able to observe the social dynamics. Although it was an event designed for my study, it set the scene to accomplish the goal of creating a performance stage for data collection.

The focus group was an artificial event engineered to allow me the opportunity to observe participants as a group, their behavior, their dialogue, and most importantly their social interaction with one another. I planned it to enable ‘ the here and now’ for these participants (Berger and Luckman, 1966, p. 22) that would provide them a socially constructed cultural scene to share their stories and to interact with one another (Spradley and McCurdy, 1972).

Although the focus group was an artificial situation that I purposefully planned and not a natural occurrence, it had value as a contextual event for observation. It was appropriate in the sense that without it, the participants would not have had the chance to exchange ideas and thoughts. For the participants, this focus group was a community experience (Spradley and McCurdy, 1975). It was an engineered social situation, that was designed to be a cultural scene (Spradley and McCurdy, 1972, p. 27). Although it was not a ’natural laboratory’ (Geertz, 1973, p. 22), it offered me an opportunity for fieldwork experience.

This event allowed for the social interaction between participants within a group setting, that would not happen unless intentionally planned. The event itself was intentionally created, but the

communication that was facilitated is a product of the reciprocal influence of the individuals’ face to face interaction (Goffman, 1959, p. 15). The comments, the feedback, the responses happened within the context of the focus group setting and provided important data. Because they work for various companies, some of which are competitors, the chance for them to commune together exclusively, does not happen. The focus group was a social setting engineered to allow a narrative exchange of social interaction; thoughts, feelings and opinions (Spradley and McCurdy, 1972). They came to the event to share and to hear what each other had to say. What they lack routinely is the situational context to be able to share as a group, they were provided that venue. This group is representative of a culture that is building a shared legacy of practice, defying physical separation in space, while

sustaining a resilience that supports their professional bond. Implementation of Focus Group

One focus group of seven individuals was carried out during the annual conference of the WOCN Society (2014, Nashville, TN). It was scheduled to last one hour from the time of introduction to closure; the video captured 75 minutes of activity. All logistical planning was performed approximately six months prior to the event. Working together with my professional organization (WOCN Society), I secured a function room for the event the afternoon prior to the Keynote Session of the Annual Conference.

A number of variables need to be addressed by the researcher during the planning phase of the focus group. Logistics include all arrangements for location and functions associated with the physical environment where the focus group will take place. Engaging a function room, planning any

refreshments and notifying participants of the event are all details to be considered and acted upon. The associated tasks may be performed by the investigator or otherwise arranged and delegated to others. Regardless, of who performs the tasks, the investigator is responsible for addressing each of the logistical details. The researcher must manage the technical expertise required to capture the event as audio/visual recordings. Audio and visual equipment is placed so that all recordings are captured in good quality and preserved with back up. The investigator must think about how to introduce the topic and guide the participants through the hour or more of the discussion (Bryman, 2008). This process may be likened to the action of a conductor who facilitates an orchestration. The

in a way that permits all participants to offer responses, while steering the conversation away from more dominant members to others who may not be as assertive (Fontana and Frey, 1994). These details may be addressed by arranging for the technical assistance to perform the tasks or they may be handled directly by the researcher. Logistical planning is a complex task and requires much

forethought.

Facilitator

During a focus group, the researcher who acts as facilitator may be distracted from the focus of what is happening during the event, due to multiple logistical demands (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). I chose to engage a professional facilitator to conduct the focus group for several reasons. I had no active role on the day of the event, other than to be an observer and a hostess. By not taking on the role of

facilitation, I gave myself permission to disengage from those responsibilities and to be vested in being an observer for that event. The person I engaged as the facilitator was a professional and her

expertise was known to me through previous business engagements. I sought her out because I knew that she was an expert in facilitation and she was skilled in interviewing of health care professionals. During a series of meetings, she was fully informed about the study, the questions, the objectives and the aim and I shared with her the Interview Guide (Appendix) I was preparing, to customize the flow for optimal dialogue. Even though I chose not to be the facilitator, I still retained the full responsibility for every facet of preparation and design to maximize the effectiveness of the event.

The participants all agreed to be video recorded for analysis of narrative and visual imagery. For security I engaged a professional for audio-visual taping of the event from beginning to end. Back up of the recording was done with two iPads and a laptop, in addition to the video recorder. By engaging a professional, I felt comfortable with knowing that multiple backup systems were in place and I felt confident that my data would be securely captured. The output recording was used for transcription and visual review.

Participants

The participants were all selected from my professional network of Certified Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses who currently work within industry. My inclusion criteria stated that prior to making the transition to industry, they had each worked at the bedside doing patient care within their specialty area. They each must have spent at least two years employed by industry, either a

focus areas of wounds, ostomies or continence was requisite. To become certified, a registered nurse must have an undergraduate degree in nursing. The participants were approached by me, face to face, at professional meetings and conferences. I explained about my study and the word soon spread of my research. Individuals approached me to volunteer. I was able to select key participants who have access to what is happening and are willing to engage (Thorne, 2016).

The participants are summarized in the table below according to specific demographic variables. Each individual has been given a pseudonym to protect identity. The participants are mature individuals and range in age from forty-six to sixty-six, spanning a total of 20 years. Their years of experience in their specialty of wound, ostomy or continence care range from twelve to twenty-five years, with a combined total of 140 years. Their duration of time spent employed in industry ranges from two years to twenty years, with a combined total of eighty years. Geographically, they are from the northeast, the mid-west and primarily the south of the USA.

Focus Group Participant Name

Age Years in

Specialty/Industry

Geography

1 IIoonnaa 6666 2255//2200 AAllaabbaammaa

2 BBeetthh 6622 2255//1122 NNeeww JJeerrsseeyy

3 CCaattee 6677 1155//99 NNeebbrraasskkaa

4 DDoorraa 4466 2200//22 FFlloorriiddaa

5 EEddiitthh 5544 1122//99 GGeeoorrggiiaa

6 FFaayy 5577 2233//1177 SSoouutthh CCaarroolliinnaa

7 GGwweenn 5588 2200//1111 FFlloorriiddaa

Running the Focus Group

The participants directly interacted with one another, in addition to responding to the facilitator. There was a level of rapport among the participants, before they even came together. Because they were purposefully chosen as members of an intimate professional community of nurses, they were all acquainted and some were friends. There was a sense of comradery among them, so they were likely to be comfortable with one another. This technique was well suited to gather individuals together to discuss a shared experience, their role and identity working in industry.

As I observed the communication flow the process became like ‘an information game’ (Goffman, 1959, p. 8), with one participant responding to another and a third or fourth member jumping into the dialogue. The focus group offered the participants a stage to share stories, opinions, knowledge and aspirations in a way that they are rarely able to do. Their experience of coming together from different companies to dialogue about who they are and what they do rarely occurs. Created as a forum for observation, the focus group had implications for myself and the group beyond that single event. Investigator Journaling of Focus Group

During the focus group, I was free to write notes on the event, since my role was to observe. I did not have the burden of leading the group, so I could focus on observation (Sanjek, 1990). This set of notes was kept as an electronic journal of the focus group. This journal includes notes on the themes I identified, that I termed jottings, with observations and notes on comments made by the participants and the emotions in the room (Emerson et al., 2011). I also had a debriefing of the focus group with my facilitator and videographer, immediately following the focus group and I took notes during this session (Kvale, 2007). My field notes assisted me to frame the context of the event while offering me an opportunity for reflexivity.

During my writing my notes helped me to get back into the moment of the event. They were an important source during the writing process and I used them to recapture the nuance of a sequence, I found them valuable. They were a resource of both my immediate reactions and my thoughtful recollections and each time that I reviewed them, they offered me a fresh perspective on the event. The preparation for and the implementation of the focus group informed my next phase of data collection. The collaborative work that I did to guide my facilitator prior to the focus group was helpful to me as I thought about and processed what needed to be done to meet the challenge of

interviewing. The early analysis of the focus group data informed and helped me to refine the Interview Guide for the interviews. Being an observer of the focus group, I was able to gain the perspective of having experienced the social interaction that occurred among the participants, to see how the questions were responded to and to listen to the give and take among the participants. I was able to then sit back and reflect on the flow of dialogue, and to think about how I could use that experience to benefit the next phase of interviewing.

Overview of In-depth interviews

Creswell (2007) writes of interviewing in a prescriptive fashion as a series of steps, while Polit and Beck (2012) describe it as a data collection method in which an interviewer asks a respondent a question. Mishler offers a definition of interviewing ’as a discourse between speakers . . . in which the meanings of questions and responses are contextually grounded and jointly constructed by the interviewer and the respondent’ (Mishler, 2009, p. 33, 34). He proposes four components that I have used to

conceptualize my in-depth interviews. Interviews are speech events; their discourse is constructed jointly by interviewer and responder; analysis and interpretation are based on a theory of discourse and meaning; and the meanings of questions and answers are contextually grounded (Mishler, 2009, p. ix). Interviewing builds upon conversational skills, but when those skills are used within a qualitative research setting they are considered tools of data collection and go beyond simple conversation to a