Activity 7

ESTABLISHING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH 1. In the context of research where a researcher probes and propounds questions to a particular participant or a group of participants, an array of tessellating and overlapping statements can be gleaned. However, these statements vary in terms of the degree of authenticity or reliability. Spontaneous or naturally occurring statements are oftentimes descriptions or elucidations of the participants personal observation, interpretation or supposition. While they can be accurate, authentic or reliable it can also be a thought-out statement depending on the real intent of the participant and the customary factors influencing his or her statements like long-established knowledge on a particular subject area. Conversely, statements affirmed by the participant in response to a researcher’s prompted question or set of questions present a more directed series of information. Carefully generated and specified research questions made on purpose provide scope and direction for the participants to state answers that are within the bounds of the purpose of the study. On that basis, statements made in response to a researchers prompted questions are more direct and more authentic in all angles considering that they are based on focused confines.
2. Basically, the contention would mostly lie on the basis of the reliability of the statements. Participants’ observations are relatively random and arbitrary in scope. At times, their statements on a particular subject are consolidated with impertinent issues which should not have been included in the first place. The prime reason for this is that there is no provision of confines that the participants can use to serve as foundations for their answers. Alternatively, responses that were gathered by prompting focused questions on interviews delivers statements which are sifted or sorted through in order to satisfy particular questions. The interviewer should ensure the consistency of the conversation since the interviewer wording of the questions depend upon him (Turner, 2010). On the whole, in gathering and analyzing data, responses prompted through interview must be admitted first more than mere observations.
3. According to Kvale (1996), the prime objective of conducting an interview, particularly a research interview, is to understand the statements, responses made by the interviewees. Therefore, the question would be "how can we assure ourselves as interviewing researchers that we understand all the responses we gathered?" Prior to factoring in your own input to a conversation, it is imperative that a clarifying question is being raised. This must be done in order to ensure coherence of ideas between the researcher and the interviewee. Moreover, a "shared" construction is inevitable since the interviewee would most likely cite your initial inputs in order to guarantee that you have a common thing in mind. In conveying the gist of the conversation in writing, citing exact responses becomes necessary. Also, it is best to transcribe inferences according to the holistic meaning of the statements made by the interviewee with respect to the topic of the research.
1. Basically, routes of access to the research setting is determined or thought in terms of the needed facets of the research. Since the research needs at least a qualitative data, routes of access is envisioned by considering formal negotiations with individuals in power over the proposed research setting.
2. Gaining access can be achieved only after consent has been granted. While the participants and the topic involved in the research have already been identified, this does not confirm the commencement of the research activity. Since interviews and conversation may take time, consent should be the utmost priority to obtain, especially considering that the research is about Business Continuity Plan.
3. It must be a given fact that initial access should be granted by someone who has control over the participants the researcher hopes to engage in the study. This must not stay long as a question. The researcher should try to avoid at least contradicting the assertions of the study that is to “avoid” business disruptions. In this particular study, it was ensured that a prior consultation or negotiation was made with the Board of Directors, Executive Management and the Managers.
4. Given that this particular research requires communication with different types of people and position, diversity of participants is inevitable. Any research which purpose requires general opinion or extensive explanations must not be contingent to any type of gender, ethnicity or social classifications.
5. Yes. The risk is determined by the authority that has the power over prospective participants. Using formal methods of gaining consents submits the researcher to an agreement that the involvement of participants, who are most likely difficult or impossible to reach using such means, can only be identified by the jurisdiction of the governing personnel or people.
6. In any study, there is a constant need for change or additions in order to make the research more accurate and reliable. In cases like this, there might be a need to negotiate or renegotiate depending on what kind of addition the researcher wishes to adjoin. Negotiation is employed if the needed changes have not yet been included in the research. renegotiation is employed if the needed changes or addition have already been included in the initial process of the research but the researcher wishes to expand it using "the same" group of participants. It is necessitated to expand the scope of the consent.
7. The account of the research purposes should elaborate on the objectives of the researcher. It should inform the participants about their part in completing the study. It must also cover all pertinent issues but with respect to the postulated possible opinions that a participant can provide.
8. In as much as a researcher wants to give a conclusive inference of the entire research activity, it is the responsibility of the researcher to take calculated actions in providing
results or statements pertaining to the status of the research. It is best to inform them of what may have gone on only after a complete picture of the study is achieved.
9. Results must be documented using a journal. If necessary, documentation should include graphs, charts and any other types of illustrations. There should also be a citation of the exact statements of the interviewed people, relative discussions and further analyses of the results gathered. It is also helpful to pose questions related to the topic.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Turner, D.W., III. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice
investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760. Retrieved from:
McNamara, C. (2009). General guidelines for conducting interviews. Retrieved from:
Hollowitz, J., &amp. Wilson, C.E. (1993). Structured interviewing in volunteer selection. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 21, 41-52.

Back To Top