Researcher’s Log 2008-01-22

8:36 pm – Last night I setup TAMS Analyzer for Round 2 analysis. I needed to re-learn how to create a new xtprj file and begin populating the code browser. With that preparation out of the way, tonight I begin coding the Round 2 responses so I can compose round three. In the previous round, the direction was very clear. Participant responses to my initial questions provided the detail necessary to write summaries for Round 2 and ask more focused questions. Now, though, the amount of detail looks overwhelming. How do I proceed?

In the case of the “other” question (question #5 in Round 2), the direction is clear. The issues that were ignored will not reappear in Round 3. There were two or three clear “favorites” (wether as benefits or concerns) that will reappear in Round 3. However, with the first four questions (motivation, context, inquiry, and social learning), the participants have provided still more data. Perhaps after I’ve coded the responses the direction will be clear. If I were to predict at this point I would guess that Round 3 might take this form: longer more detailed summaries followed by a question similar to Round 2 number 5 that asks them to take issue with one benefit and/or one concern. That way, what I will be left with is an even better “summary” for the final consensus check, when they will be asked to rate their level of consensus with the final summary. I’ll move forward with this in mind.

8:44 pm – My coding scheme has improved. I now include a two letter sequence before the primary word of the code. The first letter denotes the question topic (such as “m” for motivation) and the second letter denotes the response (such as “b” for benefit). Additional responses are listed below:

b – benefit
c – concern
n – need
i – idea