Proceso de creación de un curso en internet

I chose a qualitative approach for this study for several compelling reasons. In general, scholars find qualitative research methods especially useful in discovering the meaning that people give to events they experience (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003;

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Qualitative research questions often begin with how or what, so that researchers can gain an in-depth understanding of what is going on relative to their topic (Patton, 2002; Seidman, 1998). For this dissertation study, I explored how stakeholders involved in the production of LTBH contributed to narrative reconstruction at plantation museums. Consequently, I explored their experiences with LTBH by engaging in qualitative inquiry in order to collect rich, in-depth data from the three stakeholder groups.

I used an interpretive paradigm to correspond with a phenomenological research approach (Henderson, 1991). In an interpretive paradigm, “the central endeavor is … to understand the subjective world of human experience” (Cohen & Manion, 1994, p. 36). In an endeavor to achieve this understanding, I gathered data using qualitative research methods including in-depth, one-on-one, face-to face interviews within a semi-structured framework. This research approach contributed to my understanding of the stakeholders’ lived experiences with the performances of LTBH.

Interviews. Denzin (2001) posits that “the interview functions as a narrative device which allows persons who are so inclined to tell stories about themselves … when performed, the interview text creates the world, giving the world its situated

meaningfulness” (p. 25). Additionally, Denzin (2001) posits that the interview is an active text, “a site where meaning is created and performed” (p. 25). Furthermore, both the interviewer and the interviewed enact different performances – performances based on different narratives and interpretive practices (Denzin, 2001).

Gibson and Jordan (1998) used in-depth interviews as a data-gathering technique to understand the experiences of female solo-travelers. The authors’ study was similar to

mine in that little known research existed regarding the experiences of female solo

travelers. The authors provided some descriptive data while undertaking survey research; however, their study did not provide in-depth knowledge of women’s actual experiences while traveling solo (Gibson & Jordan, 2004). Gibson and Jordan posit that using interviews enabled them to adopt an inductive approach whereby they were not testing a theoretical model but instead identifying patterns in their data that lead to the

development of a grounded theory based on women’s articulations of their actual travel experiences. In a similar manner, I used interviews as a way to construct the

stakeholders’ involvement in implementing LTBH, in order to help tell a narrative inclusive of enslaved community members’ lived experiences.

There are many ways that researchers can gain information using interviews. Seidman (1998) argues, “Interviewing provides access to the context of people’s behavior and thereby provides ways for researchers to understand the meaning of behavior” (p. 128).16 _{Furthermore, Seidman (1998) argues the following:}

A basic assumption in in-depth interviewing research is that the meaning people make of their experience affects the way they carry out that experience . . . Interviewing allows us to put behavior in context and provides access to understanding their action. (p. 128)

Most importantly, in-depth interviews do not limit respondents to a fixed set of answers and thus have the potential to reveal multiple, and sometimes conflicting, attitudes about a given topic (Marvasti, 2004). Marvasti (2004) asserts that in-depth interviewing                                                                                                                          

16

Phenomenology is a distinct approach to thinking about and researching the social world and involves “focusing on ways in which people categorize the world by

encourages mutual self-disclosure in the context of an emotionally charged atmosphere where “the interviewer and the interviewee freely express their views about an issue” (p. 22). During this study’s interviews, participants spoke freely and shared their

experiences and perceptions with me so that I could gain knowledge of the phenomenon at hand.

Performance writing. Phelan (1998) argues that performance writing “is an inquiry into the possibilities of the intersections between speech and writing … it evokes what it means” (as cited in Denzin, 2001, p. 36). Pollock (1998) posits that performative writing is not a matter of formal style, but rather “it is evocative, reflexive, multi-voiced, criss crosses genres, is always partial and incomplete” (p. 80). Denzin (2001) explains that scholars often encounter and experience performative writing in an active way:

[Performative writing] allow(s) persons to experience their own subjectivity in the moment of performance. Performance writing is poetic and dramatic. It

transforms literal (and transcribed) speech into speech that is first-person, active, in motion ... In such texts, performance and performativity are intertwined, each defines the other. The performer’s performance creates a space the other enters. (p. 36)

Furthermore, Denzin (2001) asserts that performative writing is a way to understand how people enact and construct meaning in their daily lives. He argues, “[Performative writing] uses narrated words and stories to fashion performance texts that imagine new worlds” (p. 43). I used collective memory sites and performance studies sites as a

narratives to incorporate historical accounts of African Americans into the narrative presented at plantation museums.