We have had two meetings over the past couple of days. In the first meeting we discussed the writing up thematic analysis. We looked through the first pass I had written and discussed the following issues:
- We talked about whether the number of participants saying a certain thing in interview had any value, given that it’s a 7 person preliminary study. We said that it wasn’tt that useful to give specific numbers but a general feel for this can be good for the narrative. Marian added that it could be interesting to pick up on occasions where a participant repeatedly goes back to an issue.
- We discussed the chunking of the data – ie. what defines where one point that a participant says ends and another starts. Marian said I need to be able to justify my decisions.
- We said that a table for profiling the participants might be good. Or even short descriptions. These can provide more information and give the reader a greater sense of involvement.
- Marian suggested that the data could work in a table.
- She said have a look art Abraham or Minh Tramh’s theses.
- Adjust the 20 minute splurge technique by adding references as I go along. Even just a name in brackets. Then polish it up after the 20 mins is up
- Janet said it could be good to note. failures, issues, errors. It’s exploratory, messy, chaotic. This is the human part of doing the research and makes the narrative more natural. e.g. The camera failed and so at x stage we didn’t have any data.
We discussed the next steps for the project:
Daniel said we need something to tie the study together. At the moment it is a preliminary study, Some kind of focus group meeting would be good.
After some discussion we came to the conclusion that best option will be to interview expert practitioners – counsellors. We will take the device and our findings from the experiment and discuss them with counsellors.
The outcomes could be – options about using the device in practice
Opinions on how to change the device
Opinions on how it might be viewed or seen by users.