The data collection process for this study consisted of three main components: an online survey, interviews, and journaling. Students who were interested in the study first completed an online survey to collect demographic information about the students and their hometowns. Once participants were selected, each participated in two in-depth semi-structured interviews modified from Seidman’s (2013) phenomenological
interviewing structure (Allen & Stone, 2016; Reddick, 2011). Students were also asked to journal throughout this process as an additional form of data collection.
Initial Survey
The initial survey served a dual purpose by both helping to determine which students were the best participants for the research and collecting the initial data for the study. The survey was administered via the online platform Qualtrics. It was distributed widely through recruitment e-mails sent by staff members from a variety of programs at the university. For example, in addition to outreach to the student body more generally, more intentional outreach will also be done to programs that serve minoritized students as well as those which serve first-generation students. Questions in the survey focused on demographic information about the students and their community.7 In addition to the information from this survey being used to determine which students were most
appropriate to participate in the study, it was also used to help guide parts of the first interview for the students.
Interviews
Seidman (2013) provides a phenomenological interviewing structure that involves three separate interviews with each participant. This study combined the second and third interviews from Seidman’s model. Each interview was semi-structured, lasted approximately 45 minutes, and occurred with three days to a week between each one. This spacing helped participants to connect the two interviews, while still allowing time to reflect on the first interview before the second one occurred.
The first interview focused on the participants’ life histories. The purpose of this interview was to understand the contexts in which the experience occurred for each participant. Information from the initial survey helped guide some of the questions for this interview. Questions included:8 a) How would you describe your hometown? b) In your survey you identify your town as rural, what does rural mean to you? and c) Can you describe how you made the choice to go to college?
The second interview focused on the details of the life experience itself and how the students made meaning of those experiences. Seidman (2013) explains that the
“combination of exploring the past to clarify the events that led participants to where they are now, and describing the concrete details of their present experience, establishes conditions for reflecting upon what they are now doing in their lives” (p. 22). As
previously stated the interviews connected to one another, therefore information from the
first interview helped inform questions for the second. Examples of questions for the second interview include: a) In our last interview you talked about [a specific] difference between UT and your hometown, what challenges did you experience managing that difference? b) What skills or resources made that process easier? c) Considering the tensions that you mentioned in our last interview, what role do you think your rural background plays in your current experiences on campus? d) In what ways do you see these experiences informing your future plans?
A number of steps were taken to ensure trustworthiness throughout the interview process (Hays & Singh, 2012). First, each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim and returned to participants to be reviewed for accuracy and to see if they believed they needed to clarify any statements made within the interviews. In addition, analysis occurred simultaneously throughout the interview process. This aided in my understanding of how the interviews connected to and built upon one another. Finally, I completed research memos after each interview to help capture aspects of the interview that may not have been conveyed through the recordings, such as the participants’ demeanor, and initial thoughts on emerging themes.
Journaling
Throughout the process of this study students were asked to keep a journal. Each participant was asked to take note each time they experienced a tension between their rural community and their new campus community, or when they encountered a new idea that is in conflict with the values or ideology they came to school with. In addition, students were asked to keep track of any reflections they had concerning the interview
process as they arose between interviews. This portion of data collection lasted approximately two months. It was introduced to the students through the initial email recruiting the students to the process and also during the first interview. Students continued to journal following the final interview and were asked to submit their final entries along with their approval of the final transcripts of their interviews. This allowed me to collect the students’ reflections beyond their final interview and any additional thoughts they had as they reviewed their responses to the two interviews. Van Manen (1990) acknowledges the usefulness of journaling in the facilitation of reflection and uncovering relationships they may not have noticed otherwise. Furthermore, he
highlights the opportunity for these journals to generate phenomenological knowledge.