User:Special-educator2020/sandbox

Possible Wikipedia Pages
Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews are a way of gathering data that involve the researcher and participant/s engaging in a focused conversation. Interviews are considered to be “the most common method of gathering data for qualitative research”; further, they “are an integral part of most research traditions” (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013, p. 357). Interviews may be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013, p. 358). For this topic, available research consistently recommends the use of semi-structured interviews in which a researcher has questions to guide the interview while engaging and responding to the participant beyond the interview script (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013, p. 359).

Interview (research)

Semi-Structured Interviews

Children's use of information

Interviewing children

Ethics of research with children

Key Terms
Qualitative interviews are a way of gathering data that involve the researcher and participant/s engaging in a focused conversation. Interviews are considered to be “the most common method of gathering data for qualitative research”; further, they “are an integral part of most research traditions”. Interviews may be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. For this topic, available research consistently recommends the use of semi-structured interviews in which a researcher has questions to guide the interview while engaging and responding to the participant beyond the interview script.

Children are individuals under the age of 18 who are considered a vulnerable population in research ethics. Research ethics refers to an aspect of research focusing on the “principles of right and wrong that a particular group accepts”. Due to the young age of children, consent must be obtained from parents prior to engaging children in research.

Historical Background
Child development and psychology has played a role in the development of including children’s perspectives in research. While not all children follow a linear trajectory of development, it has been found that children between the ages of five and seven are capable of discussing their opinions with another, and by age six, children can recount their thoughts and preferences. Between the ages of seven and eleven years old, children begin to use logic to solve problems and develop self-esteem; around age ten, children tend to be able to effectively convey their thoughts and emotions to one another. These findings indicate that children have the skills to discuss their experiences, thoughts, and emotions; they can be considered experts in their own lives. Much of the methodological resources that discuss strategies for interviewing children present information from child development as a justification of this practice.

Qualitative research has more recently begun discussing the ethics of interviewing children. Theoretical shifts in the 1990’s paved the way to including children’s voices in research. The theoretical concept of children’s agency arose, emphasizing the belief that children are “capable of making sense of their views, and sharing…them…[Further,] as human beings, they are entitled to express these views”. By conceptualizing children in this way, they become valuable research participants. Although children can participate in research, child-friendly and appropriate strategies are essential when conducting research.

Ethical Considerations
Key ethical considerations when interviewing children include ensuring informed consent and a willingness to participate or continue participation, managing the presence of a power dynamic between the researcher and the participant, and issues of disclosure.

A study of children in New Zealand with motor impairments addressed both informed consent and a willingness to participate through the use of five strategies intended to help children decide whether or not they wanted to participate in the study. Strategies included providing an information sheet, interview guide of questions, consent form and questionnaires in child-friendly language and formats, an invitation letter with flexible data collection strategies, child-selected interview setting, and inviting parents to be present during the interview. A study utilizing visual data also employed similar strategies after obtaining parent consent. To further address children’s willingness to participate, researchers engaged in responsive, semi-structured interviews to allow children to guide the interview process.

The power dynamic of an adult researcher and a child participant is an important ethical consideration. Researchers must recognize that they are inherently in a position of power when working with children, and this power dynamic impacts the interview process. Further, it is important for researchers to resist falling into a “teacher mode”, in which participants begin to believe there is a right or wrong answer to the interview questions.

Issues of disclosure are present when interviewing children, as they are a vulnerable population susceptible to oversharing. To manage this risk, researchers emphasize allowing the child to lead the interview mitigates this consideration, as they are able to control how much they share with the researcher. Phelan and Kinsella also warn against creating an environment that is too comfortable for children.

Best Practices
Best practices when interviewing children include ensuring participants’ comfort, providing positive responses to children, allowing children to guide the conversation, completing the interview in a comfortable environment, and employing flexible, responsive methodology. Practices including allowing children to guide the conversation, the use of a comfortable environment, and flexible methodology are echoed in ethical considerations.

Adler, Salantera, and Zumstein encourage researchers to provide non-verbal feedback to children, such as nodding or raising eyebrows to indicate interest, but warn against affirmations that would cause children to limit what they’re saying to what may be deemed interesting. In contrast, Poinzovsky-Bergelson, Dayan, Wahle, and Roer-Strier found affirmations and encouragement from researchers elicited what was deemed to be the richest data.

There is also conflicting research on whether researchers should ask ‘why’ questions to children. In a study of what encourages or inhibits children’s participation in research, it was found that ‘why’ questions produced rich data, especially when combined with encouraging statements. However, previous research had suggested ‘why’ questions should be avoided when interviewing children.

Visual Data
Visual data included photo elicitation, co-created visual data, and child-created visual data.

Photo elicitation interviews (PEI) can be implemented in research interviews; researchers may ask children to take photographs of their daily activities and discuss these photos in their interview. PEI has been found to be useful in reducing issues of disclosure and minimize power imbalances ; in a study focused upon ethics of interviewing children, it was a successful method of engaging children in qualitative interviews.

Co-created visual data was created through participatory drawing; children create drawings around specified content at the request of a researcher. This model of interviewing to be easily implemented, engage students, and diminish barriers and power dynamics between the child and the researcher. Limitations present include challenges with interpretation of the visual data collected and the validity of these analyses.

Child-created visual data was utilized in the New Zealand study of children with motor impairments; students were asked to draw or paint their choice of leisure activity and then engaged in a conversation about what they drew. Drawing was found to be the second most preferred method of engaging in the interview amongst participants and was found to reduce anxiety for some children.

Critiquing articles
Through the article evaluation process, I learned a great deal about what is expected from a Wikipedia article. Previously, I was unaware that an article lead in Wikipedia was supposed to preview the components of the article. I also hadn’t thought much about how important objectivity is in this type of resource. When it was pointed out to me in the training, I found myself to be very attuned to this when reading articles.

When critiquing the article titled “Interviews (research)”, I was focused on evaluating the lead section, the objectivity, and the use of authoritative references. The article I selected was also completed for a Wiki Education course; I think the trainings the student took helped them to craft a well-rounded article.

My qualitative methodological research interest in this course has been interviewing children. This is an area of qualitative research methodology that is interesting to me and relevant to my future dissertation. I chose to add to the article on research interviews because I felt my area of research would help create a more well-rounded article on the topic of interviews. I considered creating an entirely new page, but decided against it. I felt the topic was too nuanced to have its own page and would be less utilized than adding to the current article.

Summarizing your contributions
I added a section on interviewing children to the article on qualitative interviews. My article had the following subheadings: Key Terms, Historical Background, and Current Practices. Each of these was specific to interviewing children. In my research on qualitative methodology for interviewing children, I found there to be special considerations for researchers that I felt should be documented in the article.

With my contributions, the length of the article is notably expanded. I feel it adds valuable information on a specific topic within the broader content.

Peer review
In reviewing my peers’ articles, I found it easiest to identify aspects of their project that did not belong. We wrote qualitative research papers on our respective topics, and then adjusted those to meet the style of Wikipedia. In doing this, I found many of us included components of our paper that did not fit in Wikipedia. Through this process, I felt I learned a lot about flexibility in writing and fitting research writing to various contexts.

My peers similarly found aspects of my article that did not fit and suggested I edit my work to remove references to the literature. Their feedback was helpful to me in adjusting my work to fit an encyclopedia context. I did not receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors when I moved my work to the main space, but I hope to receive some! I have learned through the trainings that work on Wikipedia is ever-evolving.

Wikipedia generally
Much of what I’ve learned from Wikipedia has been focused upon the revision of writing to fit various audiences and purposes. A contribution to Wikipedia is not a literature review; this has been a learning experience for me! Overall, I feel Wikipedia could be a powerful source to obtain an overall understanding of a topic before delving into it more. Moving forward, I will use Wikipedia as a resource differently than I did before taking this course.