adv workshop 9

· Read about your classmates’ experiences in transcribing interviews. Then, respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts in their unique threads in the following ways:

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper

Write My Essay For Me

· Provide feedback on your classmate’s comparison and preferences for transcribing data.

· Share insights gained from your experience. What worked for you that might work for your classmate?

Matthew

Transcribe your first interview. Use a transcription service or do it yourself.

The following is a transcript of an email-based interview. This interview was selected for verbatim transcription given it offers more content and data than the second interview summarized below:

1. What causes mass shootings to occur?

Mental illness, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Substance Abuse, Domestic Violence

2. What do you believe are the most common grievances that drive someone to commit a mass shooting?

I believe mental illness to be the main cause of mass shootings. Some of the grievances that could contribute to the mass shootings are depression, bullying, social awkwardness.

3. What characteristics or traits do you believe are associated with mass shooters?

Mental instability, Broken home life, Child abuse, Neglect, Bullying, Depression, Violent Behavior, Violent Behavior Towards Animals, Substance Abuse, Domestic Violence

4. Describe the life circumstances that are likely to be discovered in the histories of someone who carries out a mass shooting.

Substance abuse in the home, Poverty, Broken home, Parental Neglect, Sexual Abuse form Family Member, Lack of health care resources

5. Do you believe there are behaviors mass shooters engage in before an attack that might identify them as someone about whom there should be concern? If yes, what behaviors?

Someone who exhibits violent behavior towards others and/or animals.

6. Do you believe there are identifiable stressors that might trigger someone to carry out a mass shooting? If yes, what stressors?

If there were identifiable stressors there wouldn’t be mass shootings as they would be stopped prior to committing a mass shooting.

7. Do you believe mass shootings are preventable? If yes, how? If no, why not?

No. Even if you found a way to get people and children the resources needed to cope with and live a relatively decent and happy life there will always be someone out there who is just evil and will commit a crime, such as a mass shooting, for the fun of it.

8. From what source(s) do you get most of your information about mass shooters or mass shooting incidents?

Various news outlets.

9. Is there a best approach for managing someone who has made a threat of violence? If yes, please explain the approach.

I’m not sure

10. Who do you believe are most likely to be able to identify and stop a person from carrying out an act of mass violence?

I’m not sure. You could say a psychologist, school psychologist, social worker. But what if there is a misdiagnosis and now this person who needs help is labeled as a potential mass shooter.

For your second interview, use a summative technique (e.g., Halcomb & Davidson, 2006) of audio tape, interview notes, and journal notes to create a detailed summary.

The second interview offered limited data since most of the ten questions were answered using responses of either “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.” The respondent does suggest that bullying or unfair treatment are likely present in the histories of mass shooters as well as social withdrawal, isolation, and awkwardness. The responses suggest the respondent yearns to have a greater understand of what he/she might be able to do to support mass violence prevention and perceives social isolation or poor socialization as primary characteristics and experiences of the modern-day mass shooter.

Write in your unique thread a statement in which you compare and contrast the two ways of turning interviews into data. Consider which approach gets you “closer” to the experience of the participant and which approach gets you “deeper” into seeing potential patterns and categories.

It is difficult to discern which approach is more effective in terms of getting “closer” and “deeper” to the experience of the participant or the potential patterns and categories solely based on this assignment. The limited data from the summarized interview, albeit still valuable, offers very little to discern patterns or categories beyond a lack of certainty. Just based on content, the transcribing approach, again for this assignment, is more effective in this context for understanding the participants’ experience regarding mass shooters and mass shooting dynamics.

Tiffany

What aspects of the interview were well done?

The introduction and conclusion were both really thorough and clear. Tiffany offered multiple options for questions, feedback, time to process and/or elaborate, freedom to withdraw from the study, and assurances of privacy and confidentiality. The interview questions were well organized and she did an excellent job of remaining professional and unbiased.

Which questions “worked,” and which “fell flat”? In other words, were there questions the participant was not able to understand or to which he or she could not respond?

There was a question at the beginning of the first interview “what do you think of when you hear the word neglect?” and the participant said something about child abuse and then Tiffany reflected that back to the participant, “would you say that your definition of neglect is child abuse?” and as the participant continued on she didn’t really give a definition. So I would say that fell a little flat or at least didn’t really give you the information Tiffany was looking for. However, in the second interview, Tiffany reworded the question to “what do you think of when you hear the word neglect? In other words, what would be your definition of neglect?” This elicited a much richer response from the participant, so that was a great adjustment.

There are some yes/no questions in there for a specific purpose, but, as discussed during our peer debrief, Tiffany identified this herself and was already working on rewording these questions. We discussed the difference in questions when we write them versus when we say them out loud and how that changes the way they land.

Did your partner focus on examples and experiences of the phenomenon of interest? Did the participant generate rich, thick descriptions?

Tiffany’s questions were really focused on her phenomenon of interest and stayed on track throughout the interview. There might be some room for more questions that elicit an experiential response, but that can be easily accomplished when she’s reviewing the other questions she wants to adjust.

What would you suggest to improve the quality of the interview?

As mentioned above, some of the questions could be tweaked to more effectively obtain the information and experiences that she is seeking. Overall both interviews were really great!