Innovative Data Collection Strategies in Qualitative Research

Abstract

This article provides an innovative meta-framework comprising strategies designed to guide qualitative data collection in the 21st century. We present a meta-framework comprising strategies for collecting data from interviews, focus groups, observations, and documents/material culture. We present a template for collecting nonverbal data during interviews and discuss the concept of debriefing the interviewer. We identify types of data that can be collected in focus groups in addition to the actual statements made by the participants and provide templates for categorizing these data. Also, we outline the role that social networking websites can play in focus group interviews. Further, we provide models for observations that include photographs and videos. Finally, we outline ways of accessing and collating documents/material culture that can be used for document analyses.

Full text

The Qualitative Report Volume 15 Number 3 May 2010 696-726
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/onwuegbuzie.pdf
Innovative Data Collection Strategies in Qualitative Research
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
Sam Houston State University, Texas, USA
Nancy L. Leech
University of Colorado, Denver, USA
Kathleen M. T. Collins
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA
This article provides an innovative meta-framework comprising strategies
designed to guide qualitative data collection in the 21st century. We
present a meta-framework comprising strategies for collecting data from
interviews, focus groups, observations, and documents/material culture.
We present a template for collecting nonverbal data during interviews and
discuss the concept of debriefing the interviewer. We identify types of data
that can be collected in focus groups in addition to the actual statements
made by the participants and provide templates for categorizing these
data. Also, we outline the role that social networking websites can play in
focus group interviews. Further, we provide models for observations that
include photographs and videos. Finally, we outline ways of accessing and
collating documents/material culture that can be used for document
analyses. Key Words: Qualitative Research, Qualitative Data Collection,
Debriefing, Interviews, Focus Groups, Observations, Nonverbal Data,
Documents, Material Culture, and Computer-Mediated Communication
Introduction
In many disciplines and fields representing the social and behavioral sciences, the
quantitative research paradigm, which has its roots in (logical) positivism, marked the
first methodological wave (circa the 19th century), inasmuch as it was characterized by a
comprehensive and formal set of assumptions and principles surrounding epistemology
(e.g., independence of knower and known, objectivism, real causes determining outcomes
reliably and validly, time- and context-free generalizations), ontology (e.g., single
reality), axiology (e.g., value-free), methodology (e.g., deductive logic, testing or
confirming hypotheses/theory), and rhetoric (e.g., rhetorical neutrality, formal writing
style, impersonal passive voice, technical terminology). The years 1900 to 1950 marked
what could be termed as the second methodological wave, in which many researchers
who rejected (logical) positivism embraced the qualitative research paradigm1. Denzin
1 The field of social and behavioral sciences also has undergone a third methodological
movement, which, during the 1960s, saw an increase in the number of researchers
combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in a planned and systematic manner
This movement was led by classical pragmatists (e.g., Charles Sanders Pierce, John

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 697
and Lincoln (2005a) refer to this era as the first historical moment or The Traditional
Period for qualitative research. Vidich and Lyman (2000) describe earlier forms of
ethnography that took place prior to the 17th century. However, Denzin and Lincoln’s
(2005a) The Traditional Period represents the first organized qualitative research
movement. Although this moment was characterized by qualitative researchers
attempting to write reliable, valid, and objective accounts of their field experiences
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a), it paved the way for the eight subsequent qualitative
moments (see Table 1) that have incorporated paradigms that are extremely far removed
from positivism. For example, in stark contrast to positivism, constructivism has been
characterized by a different set of epistemological (e.g., subjectivist, knower and known
are inseparable), ontological (e.g., relativism), axiological (e.g., value-bound),
methodological (e.g., dialectical, hermeneutical), and rhetorical (e.g., informal writing
style using personal voice and limited definitions) assumptions.
From Table 1, it can be seen that Denzin and Lincoln (2005a) predict that in the
seventh and eighth moments, “methodological contestation will continue within and
among the many disciplinary communities of qualitative research—business, marketing,
nursing, psychology, communications studies, cultural studies, education, sociology,
anthropology, medical clinical practice and epidemiology, and others” (p. 1117). As
noted on Table 1, Denzin and Lincoln (2005a) elaborate further upon the dichotomous
nature of research by predicting that in the ninth moment, methodologists form two
opposing camps (i.e., “gold standard” of scientific research vs. socially, culturally,
ethnically, and racially responsive, communitarian, justice-oriented research). However,
in this article, we discuss the various ways that qualitative researchers might transcend
this methodological contestation and methodological divide by taking advantage of the
innovative approaches to reflexivity (i.e., “the process of critical self-reflection on one’s
biases, theoretical predispositions, preferences, and so forth” [Schwandt, 2007, p. 260];
”inspection of potential sources of bias and their control [and] critically inspecting the
entire research process” [Schwandt, p. 260]); and the latest technology and computer-
mediated communication. As such, we call for a 10th moment, which we label as the
period of Methodological Innovation, in which qualitative researchers go beyond the
traditional ways of collecting primary and reflexive data.
Dewey, and William James) and later by neopragmatists (e.g., Donald Davidson,
Nicholas Rescher, Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam). This third methodological movement
has been given many names; however, mixed methods research is the most popular term
used to describe this wave. As noted by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), mixed
methods research involves collecting, analyzing, and interpreting quantitative and
qualitative data in a single study or in a series of studies that investigate the same
underlying phenomenon. According to Denscombe (2008), “Championed by writers such
as John Creswell, Abbas Tashakkori, Burke Johnson, Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Jennifer
Greene, Charles Teddlie, and David Morgan, the mixed methods approach has emerged
in the last decade as a research movement with a recognized name and distinct identity”
(p. 270).

698 The Qualitative Report May 2010
Table 1:
Moments in the History of Qualitative Researcha
Moment
Time
Period
Description
1. Traditional
2. Modernist or
golden age
3. Blurred
genres
4. Crisis of
representation
5. Post-modern
period of
experimental
ethnographic
writing
6. Post-experimental
inquiry
7. Methodologically
contested present
8. Un-named
9. Fractured future
10. Methodological
innovationb
1900-
1950
1950-
1970
1970-
1986
1986-
1990
1990-
1995
1995-
2000
2000-
2004
2005-
2005-
2008-?
Many researchers who rejected (logical) positivism embraced the
qualitative research paradigm
Attempt to make qualitative research as rigorous as quantitative
research; causal narratives were central; many texts attempted to
formalize qualitative research; new interpretive theories emerged
(e.g., ethnomethodology, critical theory, feminism, phenomenology)
Qualitative researchers had full arsenal of paradigms, methods, and
strategies; computers came to the fore to aid qualitative analyses; new
approaches surfaced (e.g., poststructuralism, neopositivism); several
qualitative journals emerged; naturalistic, postpositivist, and
constructionist paradigms gained power
Research and writing became more reflexive and led to questions
about issues of gender, race, and class; new models of truth,
representation, and method were sought; issues such as validity,
reliability, and objectivity re-emerged as being problematic; triple
crises of representation (i.e., qualitative researchers can no longer
directly capture lived experience), legitimation (i.e., makes
problematic the traditional criteria for evaluating and interpreting
qualitative research), and praxis (i.e., involves asking whether it is
possible to effect change in the world if society is only and always a
text)
Struggle to make sense of triple crises; new ways of composing
ethnography emerged (e.g., auto-ethnography); concept of passive
observer discarded; more action, participatory, and activist-oriented
research emerged
Writings connected to the needs of a free democratic society;
experimental forms of qualitative writing published that blurred the
boundaries between social sciences and humanities
Period of conflict, great tension, and retrenchment; growing body of
literature on paradigms, approaches, and methods
Period of confronting the methodological ramifications of the
evidence-based social movement
Methodologists form two opposing camps (i.e., “gold standard” of
scientific research vs. socially, culturally, ethnically, and racially
responsive, communitarian, justice-oriented research)
Utilization of innovative approaches to reflexivity and latest
technology and computer-mediated communication

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 699
a The first nine moments were conceptualized and outlined by Denzin and Lincoln (2005a).
b The tenth moment is what we hope will emerge.
With this in mind, in this article, we provide an innovative meta-framework
comprising strategies designed to guide qualitative data collection in the 21st century. We
call our framework a meta-framework because it incorporates several new and existing
frameworks. We begin by presenting various frameworks for collecting data in
qualitative research. Specifically, we present strategies for collecting data from
interviews, focus groups, observations, and documents/material culture—which represent
four major sources of data in qualitative research (cf. Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008).
With respect to interviews, we present a template for collecting nonverbal data during
interviews. Further, we discuss the concept of debriefing the interviewer (Onwuegbuzie,
Leech, & Collins, 2008). Specifically, we outline how the interviewer could be
interviewed, present possible questions that the debriefer might ask the interviewer, and
illustrate how graphical displays can be used to collect and record debriefing data and
leave an audit trail. We call for postmodern interviews and focus groups to be extended
by utilizing the most ground-breaking media, including social networking tools (e.g.,
Facebook, MySpace.com, iTunes, iMovie, Youtube, Bebo, Friendster, Orkut, Flickr, and
Panoramio).
With regard to focus groups, we identify types of data that can be collected in
addition to the actual statements made by the participants. We provide templates for
collecting information about which participant responds to each question, the order that
each participant responds, the characteristics of the response, the nonverbal
communication used, the interaction patterns (e.g., argumentative interactions), the
degree of consensus and dissent, and the characteristics of dissenters. We show how these
data collection tools increase the rigor of focus group research. Also, we outline the role
that social networking websites can play in focus group interviews. With regard to
observations, we provide models for participants collecting their own data, including
participants drawing/painting and taking photographs and videos of their own choice.
Finally, we outline ways of accessing and collating documents/material culture
(e.g., citation management software programs such as Refworks) that can be used for
document analyses. We believe that the innovative strategies that we outline should help
researchers make informed choices for collecting data in qualitative research.
Interviews
Strategies for collecting nonverbal communication
Although the voice of the interviewee is central in all interviews, nonverbal
communication also can be important for attaining a deeper shared meaning, in which
both the interviewer and interviewee increase their awareness of the contextual nature of
the voice. Indeed, nonverbal communication and speech combined often interact in a way
that increases Verstehen, with nonverbal communication (e.g., facial expression, hand
gesture) clarifying the meaning of words spoken, and words clarifying the meaning of
nonverbal communication (Kelly, Barr, Church, & Lynch, 1999). Thus, nonverbal

700 The Qualitative Report May 2010
communication can be viewed as an additional method for obtaining information, helping
to increase communication (Bull, 2001).
As noted by Gorden (1980), there are four basic modes of nonverbal
communication: (a) proxemic (i.e., use of interpersonal space to communicate attitudes);
(b) chronemic (i.e., use of pacing of speech and length of silence in conversation); (c)
kinesic (i.e., body movements or postures); and (d) paralinguistic (i.e., all variations in
volume, pitch, and quality of voice). Because communication includes more than the
spoken words, when participants utilize these modes, they should be recorded by the
researcher (Fontana & Frey, 2005). Yet, few qualitative researchers appear to incorporate
substantive information about proxemic, kinesic, chronemic, and/or paralinguistic
nonverbal communication into their qualitative reports (Onwuegbuzie, Collins, & Leech,
2008a). Perhaps, this common omission might stem from the fact that discussion of
nonverbal communication occupies a very minimal role in standard qualitative research
text books. For example, in the seminal latest edition of the Handbook of Qualitative
Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b), one of the leading textbooks used in qualitative
research courses in the United States, of the 44 chapters contained that span 1,126 pages,
only two short paragraphs of one page (i.e., p. 713) of one chapter (i.e., Chapter 27) deal
explicitly with nonverbal communication. As another example, in Creswell’s (2007) 393-
page qualitative text book—another popular book—no explicit information is provided
about non-verbal information. Moreover, even among textbooks that provide discussion
on nonverbal communication, no explicit guidance is provided as to how to collect these
data. Although the study of nonverbal communication has been taking place for several
decades in fields such as linguistics and communication research, clearly there is a large
void in qualitative research representing fields such as education. As such, in the
following section, we provide a framework for collecting nonverbal communication
data2.
Framework for Collecting Nonverbal Communication Data
Nonverbal communication can be conceptualized as lying on a continuum of
lexicalization, with the opposite ends of the continuum being represented by adapters and
symbolic gestures, respectively (cf. Krauss, Chen, & Chawla, 1996). Adapters, which are
situated at the low end of the lexicalization continuum, represent nonverbal
communication that tends not to be considered as being indicative of meaningful gestures
(Ekman & Friersen, 1969). They involve manipulations either of the person or of some
object (e.g., clothing, spectacles, pen). At the high lexicalization end of the continuum are
symbolic gestures (e.g., hand configurations, facial expressions; cf. Ricci Bitti & Poggi,
1991) that represent specific, conventional, and popularized meanings that are recognized
by a cultural group (e.g., thumbs up). Just as cultural groups have their unique folk terms,
so too do they have special symbolic gestures that often are used in lieu of speech,
although they can also accompany speech either by emphasizing a spoken word or phrase
2 Space prevents us from providing a more lengthy discussion of collecting nonverbal
communication data. However, for a more extensive treatise, we refer the readers to
Onwuegbuzie, Collins, and Leech (2008b).

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 701
or serving as a substitute for a word or phrase that was omitted (Krauss et al.). Falling
between these two extremes of the lexicalization continuum are conversational gestures.
As noted by Krauss et al., conversational gestures are nonverbal behaviors that
accompany speech, and that appear to be related to the speech that they accompany
(Krauss et al.), manifesting themselves in the following three ways: (a) unlike symbolic
gestures, they do not occur in the absence of speech; (b) they are temporally coordinated
with speech; and (c) unlike adapters, they are related, at least in part, to the semantic
content of the speech they accompany. Lexical movements represent a major type of
conversational gesture, consisting of nonverbal behaviors that vary considerably in
length, are complex, nonrepetitive, malleable, and appear to be related to some degree to
the associated semantic content of the speech.
A useful model for assessing nonverbal communication is the neurocultural model
of facial expression (Ekman, 1972). According to this model, there are at least six
fundamental emotions that are associated with innate facial expressions, and which can
be adapted via learning that are called display rules—representing norms guiding how
emotion is expressed in various social contexts and which vary within and among
cultures (Bull, 2001). These six emotions are happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, and
surprise.
Mapping these six emotions onto the lexicalization continuum yields the matrix in
Table 2. Such a table could be used not only to document the type of verbal-based
emotion exhibited by the interviewee in responding to each interview question but also
whether the nonverbal communication observed, if any, represented an adapter, symbolic
gesture, or lexical movement. The exact (if the researcher adopts a more post-positivist
stance in attempting to identify accurately the facial musculature underlying the primary
emotions) or perceived (if the researcher adopts a more constructivist-poststructuralist-
critical stance of the existence of equally valid accounts of the same phenomenon
representing multiple realities) nature of the nonverbal communication also could
recorded in the cells either in real-time or when analyzing a video-recording of the
interview, if available. Regardless of the stance of the focus group researcher (e.g., post-
positivist, constructivist), he/she could benefit from training in how to recognize and
interpret facial expressions. In particular, the qualitative researcher could learn the facial
action coding system (FACS; Hager, Ekman, & Friesen, 2002) via a manual or an
intensive workshop (see, for e.g., Rosenberg, 2009), and could even receive FACS
certification. Regardless of the qualitative researcher’s level of expertise in identifying
and interpreting facial expressions, we recommend that, where possible, the qualitative
researcher subjects the matrix to member checking to increase what Maxwell (1992)
referred to as descriptive validity (i.e., factual accuracy of the emotional expression as
documented by the researcher), interpretive validity (i.e., the extent to which an
interpretation of the emotional expression represents an understanding of the perspective
of the person and the meanings attached to the person’s words and actions), and
theoretical validity (i.e., the extent to which a theoretical explanation developed from the
emotional expression in part or as a whole is consistent with the data). When using such a
matrix to record nonverbal communication while the actual interview is taking place (i.e.,
real time documentation), the researcher should use shorthand codes/symbols to
minimize the time spent writing, and thus minimize any distraction that documentation

702 The Qualitative Report May 2010
might cause on both the interviewee and interviewer. The completed matrix then could be
analyzed simultaneously with the verbal data to enhance meaning.
Table 2
Matrix for Assessing Nonverbal Communication Using Krauss et al.’s (1996) Typology of
Nonverbal Behaviors and Ekman’s (1972) Neurocultural Modela
Emotion
Adapters
Lexical Movements
Symbolic Gestures
Happiness
Sadness
Anger
Fear
Disgust
Surprise
Otherb
a This matrix incorporates Krauss et al.’s (1996) typology of nonverbal behaviors and Ekman’s (1972)
neurocultural model of facial expression.
b Emotions placed in the “Other” category include ‘alarmed,’ ‘bored,’ ‘contempt,’ and ‘excited.’
McNeill’s (1992) classification scheme of gestures also can be used to help
qualitative researchers collect nonverbal communication data. Specifically, as noted by
McCafferty (1998), five of McNeill’s gesture types are particularly useful: iconics,
metaphorics, beats, deictics, and emblems. Iconics represent concrete gestures that
simulate movements or depict movement or objects, such as the simultaneous upper
movement of the upper half of the body while stating that “the table jumped up in the air”
when describing the observed effects of an earthquake. Also important is the orientation
of the gesture to the word(s)/phrase. Thus, the interviewee could describe the effects of
the earthquake in several ways depending on the meaning that the interviewee wants to
portray; for example, the gesture could emphasize the speed of the movement of the
table, the abruptness, the height, and so forth. Third, meaning can be communicated via
gestures that indicate the storyteller’s point of view. Using the earthquake example, for
instance, the interviewee could illustrate the movement of the table using an emic (i.e.,
insider’s) view (i.e., taking on the role of the table by using the whole body) or an etic
(i.e., outsider’s) view (i.e., as an observer of the event by using only a part of the body
such as the hands/arms). Thus, according to McNeill, iconic gestures are especially useful
for extracting meaning inasmuch as they “cannot help but expose the relevant dimensions
of the speaker’s thought….[and]…they are the closest look at the ideas of another person
that we, the observers can get” (pp. 132-133).

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 703
Metaphoric gestures, like iconic gestures, are extremely visual in nature.
However, in contrast to iconic gestures, they portray abstract thoughts or ideas. For
example, the phrase (i.e., idiom), “take the bull by its horns,” could be depicted by the
interviewee stretching out both hands and clenching both fists to indicate taking one horn
with each hand, which, in turn, is used to indicate that the interviewee has started taking
control of her life. As another example, when contrasting two competing ideas or stances,
the interviewee might draw an imaginary line in the immediate space in front of her or
him, indicating the left side as representing one idea and the right side representing the
other idea. Unlike iconic gestures, metaphoric gestures typically do not involve use of the
whole or large parts of the body.
Beats, like metaphoric gestures, represents abstract ideas. They are used to set the
word(s) or phrase apart from other words/phrases. As noted by McNeill (1992), a beat
can function metapragmatically by characterizing the word(s)/phrase it accompanies as
being significant not only with respect to its semantic content but also in terms of its
discourse-pragmatic content. Examples of beats include repetitive up-and-down
movements of a finger and/or hand, and/or the stamping of a foot.
Deictics involves an abstract level of pointing—namely, a pointing to ideas that
are represented in a metaphorical space. These gestures are used to help the interviewee
keep track of statements made and stories told during the course of the interview. For
instance, an interviewee might use gestures (e.g., facial expressions, rapid circling of a
finger) to direct the discussion back to an earlier statement made or story told. Abstract
pointing also might indicate that the interviewee has stepped out of her or his role as a
story teller and into a more shared conversation between the interviewer and interviewee
(McCafferty, 1998).
Finally, emblems represent the traditional notion of gestures that have specific
linguistic designation such as nodding the head up and down to indicate a response in the
affirmative. As such, emblems are similar to Krauss et al.’s (1996) lexical movements.
These five gestures can be used to form a matrix such as that in Table 3, in which
Ekman’s (1972) six emotions are mapped onto McNeill’s (1992) five types of gestures.
As with Table 2, such a table could be used not only to document the type of verbal-
based emotion exhibited by the interviewee in responding to each interview question but
also whether the nonverbal communication observed, if any, represented an iconic,
metaphoric, beat, deictic, or emblem. The exact or perceived nature of the nonverbal
communication also could be recorded in the cells either in real-time or when analyzing a
video-recording of the interview, if available. Shorthand symbols should be used to
record the nonverbal behaviors. Again, we recommend that member checking be used to
establish the trustworthiness of the classifications.
The typologies in Table 2 and Table 3 can be used in a transcription to combine
each utterance made with its respective nonverbal expression type. Such a schema would
help the researcher to contextualize the utterances to a greater extent. The matrices in
Table 2 and Table 3 are just two of the numerous matrices that could be developed to
collect nonverbal communication data. The data provided in both of these matrices, when
combined with the utterances, lend themselves to some form of componential analysis—a
“systematic search for attributes (components of meaning) associated with cultural
symbols” (Spradley, 1979, p. 174). By using such tables, a componential analysis can be
used to discover the differences among the subcomponents of domains, with the goal

704 The Qualitative Report May 2010
being to “map as accurately as possible the psychological reality of our informant’s
cultural knowledge” (p. 176). In particular, these tables can help the qualitative
researcher to create what Spradley refers to as (a) contrast sets (i.e., terms that are both
alike and different that help the researcher determine how a given symbol [word, event,
construct] is different from others in order to discover dimensions of meaning) and (b)
dimensions of contrast, which are questions formulated by the researcher to help
differentiate the contrast set and to elicit missing attributes and new dimensions of
contrast, and which will inform the subsequent interview that is conducted to elicit
needed data. When the interview is video-recorded, the qualitative researcher also might
consider using available computer software such as THEME (cf. Magnusson, 1996),
wherein a researcher can code selected behavioral categories from a digital video-
recording directly onto a computer, which allows the researcher to discover, describe, and
ultimately explain the structure of complex processes that develop in time such as intra-
and inter-individual modes of nonverbal behavior.
Table 3
Matrix for Assessing Nonverbal Communication Using McNeil’s (1992) Classification of Gesture
and Ekman’s (1972) Neurocultural Modela
Emotion
Iconics
Metaphorics
Beats
Deictics
Emblemsb
Happiness
Sadness
Anger
Fear
Disgust
Surprise
Otherc
a This matrix incorporates McNeil’s (1992) classification of gesture and Ekman’s (1972) neurocultural
model of facial expression.
b Emblem gestures can be subdivided into elements such as Finger Pointing, Head Nod, Head Shake,
Shoulder Shrug, and so forth.
c Emotions placed in the “Other” category include ‘alarmed,’ ‘bored,’ ‘contempt,’ and ‘excited.’
Strategies for enhancing reflexivity
Instruments utilized in qualitative research are few: in fact, the researcher is most
commonly considered the main instrument for data collection, analysis, and interpretation
(Paisley & Reeves, 2001). Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that bias is a part of
the research (Miles & Huberman, 1994). According to Miles and Huberman, there are

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 705
two types of researcher bias, (a) the effects of the researcher on the study participant(s)/
key informant(s) (i.e., termed Bias A); and (b) the effects of the study participant(s)/key
informant(s) on the researcher (i.e., termed Bias B). Bias can play a part of the research
process at any stage of the research study. Bias A tends to be introduced when the
researcher poses a threat to the relationships of the participants, either socially or
institutionally. Bias A can inhibit a participant and lead to participants viewing the
researcher as a spy, voyeur, antagonist, or critic. Bias B occurs when the researcher goes
native (Adler & Adler, 1987), which is defined as the researcher becoming a participant.
Biases, especially Bias A and B, generally, are not examined or reflected upon by the
researcher, and, thus, the role that these biases might play in the study is not addressed
systemically. Subsequently, the study’s findings and the researcher’s interpretations
might be compromised. Therefore, examining his or her biases and reflecting critically
upon them in a systematic manner could facilitate the researcher’s efforts to self-analyze
these biases and to address the crisis of legitimation, specifically, by keeping biases from
affecting the results and the inferences drawn.
To facilitate this process, Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) present the concept of
debriefing the researcher. The process of debriefing entails the researcher being
interviewed by a person who is not involved directly in the study; yet, this person is
someone who understands the research topic that is the focus of the study or program of
research. According to Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008), these interview data could assist the
researcher in assessing his or her hunches or intuitive feelings that were formulated at the
beginning of the study and adapted as the study progressed. Having the researcher present
these hunches or intuitive feelings to the debriefing interviewer might elevate the
researcher’s understanding of the research process that was implemented in a particular
study or program of research and also serve as an audit trail.
Debriefing the researcher
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) present the following guidelines for conducting the
debriefing interview. First, it is important for the debriefer to (a) be knowledgeable (i.e.,
regarding interviewing, qualitative research, the specific research topic), (b) not be
involved in the study, and (c) not hold a vested interest in the research study. Second, the
interview should be in a private place where it can be recorded, either audio- or
videotaped. Third, where possible, prior to the interview, the debriefer would read the
data transcripts from the study and write potential questions to ask the interpretive
researcher. Fourth, when formulating questions relevant to a particular study or context,
the debriefer should use (a) open-ended questions, (b) questions that foster answers that
include the researcher’s feelings, and (c) questions regarding the researcher’s thoughts,
perceptions, and experiences. Conveniently, the debriefer could use some or all of the
questions developed by Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008), which are discussed below. Use of
these questions would bypass the third and fourth steps above.
Research bias: Questions to use when debriefing the interviewer
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) also present interviewing questions that the debriefer
could ask the researcher regarding bias. These questions are based on the following eight

706 The Qualitative Report May 2010
concepts: (a) the researcher’s experience with interviewing, (b) the researcher’s
understanding of the participant(s), (c) the researcher’s depth of knowledge of non-verbal
communication, (d) how the researcher interprets the findings from the interviews, (e)
thoughts regarding how the study affected the researcher, (f) concerns regarding the
impact of the study on the participants, (g) ethical or political issues that might have
come up at any stage of the research, and (h) the researcher’s identification of problems
that stemmed from the interviews (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2008).
These eight main areas accompanied by a subset of sample questions are outlined
in Table 4. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) note that these questions are only starting points
and that the debriefer should elaborate as necessary depending on the research topic,
design, goal, and so forth (cf. Onwuegbuzie et al., 2008 for a detailed list of questions).
Authenticity criteria: Questions to use when debriefing the interviewer
To promote further the concept of debriefing the interviewer as a means of
elevating the trustworthiness of the researcher’s conclusions and inferences,
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) suggest using Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) principles of
authenticity criteria when debriefing the interviewer. The five principles of authenticity
criteria, which stem from the naturalistic/constructivist assumptions, are: fairness,
ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity, and tactical
authenticity. Each of these principles is discussed below.
The first principle of fairness can be defined as representing the balance and “the
extent to which different constructions and their underlying value structures are solicited
and honored within the evaluation process” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, pp. 246-247).
Constructions include aspects of all stakeholders involved in the study, including their
thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Fairness is promoted by presenting and member-
checking these constructions in a balanced format. Thus, fairness is promoted by the
researcher when contradictory information is presented by stakeholders, wherein the
interpretive researcher must identify, navigate, and present these contradictions in a fair
and balanced manner (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
The process to promote fairness includes (a) identifying the stakeholders and their
constructions and, subsequently, discovering their conflicts in regard to issues and
problems; and (b) conducting an “open negotiation of recommendations and of the
agenda for subsequent action” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 246). By utilizing negotiation,
unresolved problems and issues could be addressed (Guba & Lincoln, 2005) and
improved upon by conducting a debriefing interview (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2008).

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 707
Table 4
Possible Debriefing Topics and Questions Relating Directly to Bias1
Researcher’s Interview
Background/Experience
How would you characterize your training/experience (e.g., clinical, applied)
conducting interviews?
What experiences have you had that you believe impacted your decisions to
conduct the interview(s)?
Researcher’s Perceptions of the
Participant(s)
How comfortable were you interacting with all of the participants?
Which participants made you feel more/less comfortable?
Which participant responses did you feel were the most helpful?
In what ways did you think they were the most helpful?
How did these feelings that you have described influence your perception of the
interview process as a whole?
Perceptions of Non-Verbal
Communication
To what degree do you think the setting impacted the dynamics of the
interview(s)?
To what degree do you think the tonal quality (volume, pitch, quality of voice)
or the dialogue between the interviewee and yourself impacted the dynamics of
the interview(s)?
To what degree do you think the pacing of the conversation (e.g., length of time
between question asked and answered) impacted the dynamics of the
interview(s)?
Interpretations of Interview
Findings/Interpretations
What role did the sample characteristics (e.g.,
gender/race/culture/class/hierarchy/status/age) play in shaping your
interpretations of the interview data?
What findings surprised you?
What findings gave you a negative reaction?
Why do you think you reacted negatively to this finding(s)?
What findings gave you a positive reaction?
Why do you think you reacted positively to this finding(s)?
To what degree were the findings similar or dissimilar to your thoughts prior to
conducting the interview(s)?
Impacts on the Researcher
Which part of the interview(s), if any, impacted you?
What background variables of the participant (e.g.,
gender/race/culture/class/hierarchy/status/age) influenced your perception of the
participant?
In what ways, if any, do you feel you are a different person now that you have
conducted the interview(s)?
In the future, how will you conduct interviews based on what you learned
during the interview(s)?
Impacts on the Participant(s)
In what ways, if any, do you feel your
gender/race/culture/class/hierarchy/status/age influenced the participant’s
responses/comments during the interview(s)?
What other background variables might have influenced how the participant
reacted?
Ethical or Political Issues
What types of ethical issues did you encounter during the interview(s), if any?
How did you handle the ethical issue?
In your opinion, how did the ethical issue impact the participants and/or the
integrity of the interview(s)?
What political issues did you encounter before, during, or after the interview(s)?
In what ways do you feel the political issue impacted the study?
During the interview, did you feel at any time that the interviewee was
providing socially acceptable or politically acceptable answers that did not
reflect the true state of affairs? If yes, how did you respond?
Unexpected Issues or Dilemmas
At what point did an issue or situation arise in the study that you were not
expecting? How did you respond?
What dilemmas did you encounter during the study? How did you handle the
dilemma?
Note. Debriefing interviewers are by no means expected to ask all of these questions in this table; rather, the goal of his
table is to provide ideas of questions that debriefing interviewers might consider asking.
This table was adapted from Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008). Reprinted with permission of Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Sam
Houston State University.

708 The Qualitative Report May 2010
The second principle of authenticity criteria is ontological authenticity (Guba &
Lincoln, 1989). Ontological authenticity refers to the degree that the study participants’
levels of awareness (i.e., “conscious experiencing of the world” [Lincoln & Guba, 1986,
p. 81]) have been impacted by their involvement in the study. By collecting data from
participants and by keeping audit trails of the participants’ insights into their own lives,
evidence of ontological authenticity can be identified. This audit trail can be created via
the debriefing interviews, by documenting the participants’ and the researcher’s growth
and change. Furthermore, interviews can assist the researcher in delving deeper into the
participants’ stories, thereby providing data regarding the participants’ levels of change in
awareness (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2008).
The third principle of authenticity criteria is educative authenticity (Guba & Lincoln,
1989). Specifically, educative authenticity refers to the degree that the study’s
participants are cognizant of but not necessarily in agreement with the constructions and
values of other stakeholders who are not representative of the participant’s own
stakeholder group. Evidence of educative authenticity can be derived similarly to
ontological authenticity, and can be enhanced by debriefing interviews.
The fourth principle is that of catalytic authenticity. The main aspect of this
principle is that participants will have new constructions or thoughts regarding other
stakeholders’ positions, and this awareness on the part of participants evolves into
decisions and actions. Guba and Lincoln (1989) present three methods of assessing
catalytic authenticity. First, data (i.e., testimonies) are collected from all participants and
stakeholders to assess the degree that they are willing to act on their changed perceptions.
Second, testimonies are collected to document the combined actions of any two
participants who have negotiated a resolution of conflicting constructions. Lastly,
longitudinally, the researcher will assess the degree that participants’ decisions and
actions reflect their changed perceptions and understandings. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008)
advocate that debriefing interviews be utilized, especially with the first two methods, to
increase catalytic authenticity.
The final principle is tactical authenticity. Here, based on the results of the study
and the participants’ elevated levels of understanding, they are empowered to act. As
with catalytic authenticity, there are three strategies to assess tactical authenticity (Guba
& Lincoln, 1989). First, the researcher collects data (i.e., testimonies) from participants
and stakeholders to understand and to document the specific actions taken by
participants. Second, after time has elapsed, the researcher conducts a follow-up
assessment of which and how each participant acted. Finally, researcher(s) and
participant(s) assess collaboratively the level(s) of empowerment that were demonstrated
by participants during the study. Again, Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) suggest debriefing
interviews be utilized to document these processes. Table 5 includes starting points for
example questions to assess the five authenticity principles.

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 709
Table 5
Possible Debriefing Questions Relating to Authenticity Bias
Fairness
To what extent do you think you have identified and, subsequently,
interviewed representatives of all the major stakeholders of the study?
What types of techniques have you used to ensure that the participants’
constructions are presented, clarified, and member-checked in as balanced
a way as possible?
To what extent do you think you have exercised balance in representing the
thoughts, perceptions, feelings, concerns, assertions, and experiences of all
participants?
To what extent do you think you have identified and negotiated any
stakeholders’ conflicts with respect to assertions, issues, concerns, and
problems?
Ontological Authenticity
To what extent do you think you have provided the participants with
opportunities to increase their levels of awareness of the complexities of
their surroundings and/or situational context?
To what extent do you think you have sought and obtained evidence of the
participants’ increased awareness of their own lives?
What evidence can you provide, if any, of your own level of awareness of
the complexities of your surroundings and/or situational context?
What strategies have you used to monitor your own developing
constructions (i.e., progressive subjectivity) and document the process of
change from the beginning of the interview process/study until the end?
Educative Authenticity
To what extent do you think you have promoted participants’
understanding of and appreciation for the constructions of others?
To what extent do you think you have helped the participants realize that
the constructions of others stem from the value systems of these other
individuals?
To what extent do you think you have helped the participants to develop
empathy and obtain insights in terms of relating to the personal and or
professional experiences of other stakeholders?
To what extent do you think your own empathy and insights of the
participants evolved during the course of the interviews?
Catalytic Authenticity
To what extent do you think that participants’ newly evolved constructions
and appreciations of the position of others have led to some action(s) taken
or decision(s) made by the participants?
To what extent do you think you have sought and obtained evidence of
each participant’s interest in and willingness to act on the increased
understanding?
To what extent do you think you have sought and obtained evidence of
joint actions of participants who have come to resolutions stemming from
negotiations of tensions invoked by contesting and contradictory
constructions of the stakeholders?
What follow-up strategies do you intend to utilize to assess the extent to
which action occurred stemming from the increased understandings that
emerged during the course of the study?
Tactical Authenticity
How empowered do the participants appear to be?
How participatory were the actions taken by the participants?
To what extent are all participants more skilled than they were previously
(e.g., since the study begun; since the last interview) in understanding and
utilizing power and negotiation techniques?
To what extent do the stakeholders believe that they or their representatives
have had a significant role in the action(s) taken and/or decision(s) made?
This table was adapted from Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008). Reprinted with permission of Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Sam
Houston State University.

710 The Qualitative Report May 2010
Debriefing interviews
According to Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008), there are multiple aspects of debriefing
interviews to consider. First, during a debriefing interview, both verbal and non-verbal
communication would be queried. In particular, each of the four major types of non-
verbal communication (i.e., proxemic, kinesic, chronemic, paralinguistic orientations; cf.
Gorden, 1980) should be explored during the debriefing interview.
Second, even though debriefing interviews could be conducted after all the
participant interviews have been completed, debriefing interviews could be undertaken
throughout the study. Debriefing interviews could be conducted after each participant
interview, which would help to create an audit trail of the researcher’s thoughts, feelings,
and perceptions. Furthermore, the researcher can use the information gleaned through the
debriefing interview to make modifications in the later interviews. Indeed, as a member
of their dissertation committees, the first author conducts debriefing interviews of all
students who are conducting dissertations representing qualitative or mixed methods
research at various stages of their studies. To date, every student who has undergone
debriefing interviews describes how useful they are for helping them reflect deeply about
their experiences, perceptions, feelings, emotions, actions, and the like, during the
dissertation process. Thus, our recommendation for debriefing interviews to be used in
qualitative research stems from practical experience.
Third, debriefing interviews include a conversation between the debriefer and the
researcher, thereby creating knowledge (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2008). Thus, the debriefing
interviewer and the researcher could both analyze the data derived from the debriefing
interview. By doing so, member checking would be accomplished to ascertain the
credibility of the data. This collaboration also might lead the researcher and interviewer
to co-author facets of or the entirety of the final report.
Fourth, debriefing interviews represent both a trustworthiness procedure and a
data collection procedure. As a trustworthiness procedure, the debriefer could play the
role of devil’s advocate or “disinterested peer” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 308), whose
role is to make the researcher accountable for her/his interpretations by posing difficult
questions about various aspects of the research process. As a data collection procedure,
the debriefer could provide the researcher with the opportunity for catharsis by
identifying with the researcher’s feelings. The information extracted from the debriefing
interviews, which can be analyzed using an array of qualitative data analysis tools (see,
for e.g., Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007, 2008), would provide additional data to those
collected on the participant(s), thereby facilitating rich and detailed description of the
underlying phenomenon and/or case(s). As noted by Lincoln and Guba, “debriefing is a
useful—if sobering—experience to which to subject oneself; its utility, when properly
engaged, is unquestionable” (1985, p. 309).
Displays in debriefing interviews
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) recommend the use of Miles and Huberman’s (1994)
framework in documenting and interpreting patterns (e.g., matrices, displays) of the data
collected during the debriefing interviews and providing an audit trail. Many computer-

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 711
assisted software packages (e.g., NVIVO, QDA Miner) can be helpful when creating
matrices and displays. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) suggest possibly having the cell entries
include the participants’ statements and the researcher’s statements from the debriefing
interview (cf. Onwuegbuzie et al., 2008 for a detailed discussion of the various uses of
displays and matrices).
Focus Group Research
Focus group research is defined as a method of collecting data, in a safe
environment, from more than one individual at a time, regarding a specified area of
interrogation (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Focus groups have been used for decades
(Morgan, 1998). In the 1920s, researchers used focus groups to create survey
questionnaires. Later, market researchers used focus groups as a method to obtain
participants’ attitudes and opinions (Greenbaum, 1998). Only during the last 20 years
have researchers utilized focus groups to collect qualitative data (Madriz, 2000). In the
1980s, the first books on focus groups were published (Morgan, 1988) and health
researchers used focus groups in social action research (Wilkinson, 1998).
Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech, and Zoran (2009) suggest several benefits to
using focus groups in qualitative research. First, focus groups are economical (Krueger &
Casey, 2000). Because participants are interviewed in a group setting, the data can be
collected faster and usually at a lower economic cost to the researcher. Second, using
focus groups might increase the number of participants in the study (Krueger & Casey).
Third, according to Krueger and Casey, focus groups are a means to collect social data in
a social environment. Fourth, the interaction among participants can be identified through
focus groups (Morgan, 1988). Fifth, focus groups have high face validity (Krueger &
Casey). Focus groups also can create an atmosphere where more responses can take place
(Butler, 1996). Furthermore, Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub (1996) suggest focus groups
can create a “safer” environment than can individual interviews. Finally, focus groups
provide a place for participants to interact in such a way that personal issues and
problems can potentially be solved (Duggleby, 2005).
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) present a framework for collecting focus group data,
which includes identifying types of data to collect during focus groups, as well as micro-
interlocutor data collection (i.e., the order and characteristics in which members of the
group respond to questions). In the next section, this framework is presented and
described.
Focus group data
Focus groups are usually conducted for one to two hours (Morgan, 1997; Vaughn
et al., 1996), based on the research questions and design. It is recommended that the size
of the group include between six and twelve participants, so that the group is small
enough for all members to talk and share their thoughts, and yet large enough to create a
diverse group (Krueger, 1994; Krueger & Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1997). Krueger suggests
the use of “mini-focus groups” (p. 17) with three (Morgan, 1997) or four (Krueger)
members, in order to get more in-depth information. Focus groups might meet once, or
multiple times. Krueger and Morgan (1997) suggest if more than one meeting is needed,

712 The Qualitative Report May 2010
then at least three to six focus group meetings should be held. As noted by Onwuegbuzie
et al. (2009), more than one meeting for the focus group can help the researcher in a
number of ways—including achieving data saturation. The members of the focus group
can be made up of people in a pre-existing group or the focus group can be created by the
researcher. Most commonly, focus group members respond to questions posed by the
researcher. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) suggest that the researcher might also consider
presenting material to which the members can respond. These types of materials can
include video, articles, pictures, and so forth. Another type of activity in which the
members of the focus group can engage is group activities, such as team-building
activities.
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) suggest the use of a moderator and an assistant
moderator (Krueger, 1994) to lead the focus group. The moderator’s tasks include
facilitating the discussion and taking notes during discussion in order to create new
questions for the group. The assistant moderator’s tasks include ensuring the recording of
the session (i.e., either through audio or videotaping), recording the session via hand
written notes, securing the environment via a comfortable temperature, handling
latecomers or other interruptions, and then assisting in data analysis with the researcher
(Krueger & Casey, 2000).
Data collected from focus groups have traditionally included the text from the
members of the group. Duggleby (2005) suggests using other types of data as well,
including interaction data, group data, and individual data. Unfortunately, this leads to
controversy over what the unit of analysis might be. It has been argued that the individual
or group data should be considered the focus, not the unit, of analysis (Kidd & Marshall,
2000). Morgan (1997) states that most researchers designate the group as the unit of
analysis within a study. Researchers analyze these data and usually present themes to
assist in understanding what occurred in the group. The main problem with this approach
is that the themes might not provide helpful information regarding the amount of
agreement among the participants (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). By not collecting data
regarding the level of consensus and, thus, making it appear that all of the participants
agreed, the participants who do not agree are, in fact, being censored. Including data
regarding those who do not agree, or what Kitzinger (1994) refers to as “argumentative
interactions” can increase the chances of obtaining rich data (Sim, 1998). By collecting
the dissenter’s data, the researchers would be able to determine the level of saturation for
the focus group—what Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) termed within-group data saturation.3
Collecting this type of data would be beneficial in understanding the themes and
categories. Focus group researchers also could signify the shifts in talk and thought
reflected in the focus group interview and generated by the group dynamics.
3 We point out that within-group saturation is a necessary but not sufficient condition
either for overall data saturation or theoretical saturation. For data saturation and/or
theoretical saturation to occur both within-group and across-group saturation are needed.

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 713
Consensus: Strategies for collecting information
Wilkinson (1998) stated that most focus group researchers utilize the group as the
unit of analysis. By doing so, the group is seen as a whole, where some individuals might
not have contributed equally or at all. Consensus might only reflect the group’s
dynamics, not the underlying perspectives of the individuals in the group (Crabtree,
Yanoshik, Miller, & O’Connor, 1993). Therefore, it is important to include information
regarding how many members were in agreement with the consensus. Furthermore, any
participants who did not agree with the consensus should be recorded, as well as those
participants who did not express any opinion. It is helpful if the researcher can also note
what level of agreement or disagreement the participants held. This can be accomplished
by keeping track of statements such as “I agree” or nodding of the head. Table 6 can be
utilized as a matrix for recording these observations.
Table 6
Matrix for Assessing Level of Consensus in Focus Group
Focus Group
Question
Member
1
Member
2
Member
3
Member
4
Member
5
Member
6
1
2
3
……
The following notations are entered in the cells:
A = Indicated agreement (i.e., verbal or nonverbal)
D = Indicated dissent (i.e., verbal or nonverbal)
SE = Provided significant statement or example suggesting agreementa
SD = Provided significant statement or example suggesting dissent
NR = Did not indicate agreement or dissent (i.e., non-response)
This table was adapted from Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008). Reprinted with permission of Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Sam
Houston State University.
By using a matrix such as presented in Table 6, the researcher can maintain a
record of the number of participants who agreed and the number who did not agree Kidd
and Marshall (2000) and Morgan (1997) suggest using descriptive counts of these
categories. Yet, just using counts can be misleading. As Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009)
suggest, counts should not replace the qualitative data that have been collected, because
these data will include the intensity of the viewpoints expressed by the participants.
Richer results can be produced when the counts are combined with the qualitative data.

714 The Qualitative Report May 2010
Strategies for collecting nonverbal communication
Table 7
Matrix for Documenting Proxemic, Chronemic, Kinesic, and Paralinguistic Information
Focus Group
Question
Member
1
Member
2
Member
3
Member
4
Member
5
Member
6
1
2
3
……
Symbolsa such as the following could be inserted into the cells by the assistant moderator, as appropriate:
hhh The letter “h” is used to indicate hearable aspirations, its length being approximately proportional
to the number of ‘h’s. If preceded by a dot, the aspiration denotes an in-breath.
> Talk is faster than the surrounding talk.
< Talk is slower than the surrounding talk.
(0.6) Numbers in parentheses indicate periods of silence, in tenths of a second—a dot inside parentheses
indicates a pause of less than 0.2 seconds.
::: Colons indicate a lengthening of the sound just preceding them, proportional to the number of
colons.
toda- A hyphen indicates an abrupt cut-off or self-interruption of the utterance in progress indicated by
the preceding letter(s) (the example here represents a self-interrupted ‘today’).
____ Underlining indicates stress or emphasis.
gr^eat A ‘hat’ circumflex accent symbol indicates a marked increase in pitch.
= Equal signs indicate no silence between consecutive clauses or sentences.
LLL The letter “L” is used to represent laughter.
SSS The letter “S” is used to represent sighing.
FFF The letter “F” is used to represent frowning.
PPP The letter “P” is used to represent passion.
L ↑ Speaker leans forward while talking, the length of the arrow being approximately proportional to
how far the speaker leans.
L ↓ Speaker leans backward while talking.
L ← Speaker leans to the left while talking.
L → Speaker leans to the right while talking.
Note: aThis table was adapted from Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008). Reprinted with permission of Anthony J.
Onwuegbuzie, Sam Houston State University.
Another type of data to collect from focus groups is nonverbal data. Similar to
individual interviews, nonverbal data includes proxemic, chronemic, kinesic, and
paralinguistic information. During a focus group, the assistant moderator should focus on
the nonverbal behavior in order to be able to use this information as data (Fontana &
Frey, 2005). The assistant moderator should document where each group member sits,
how close the chairs are placed to one another, and the relevant demographic data for
each participant (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). This documentation will assist the
researcher in identifying trends, such as certain members of the group sitting together and
stating similar views or perspectives. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) further suggest that the
assistant moderator should use transcription conventions to proxemic, chronemic, kinesic,

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 715
and paralinguistic information. Table 7 includes a sample transcription. Table 2 and
Table 3 could also be used to understand better nonverbal behavior in focus groups.
Monitoring sub-groups: Techniques and strategies
During a focus group it is important to monitor sub-groups. Onwuegbuzie,
Collins, and their colleagues (cf. Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, in press) discuss the role
of group dynamics and how these impact group outcomes. The mix of the members of the
focus group impacts the type of data that can be collected. Groups that have members
who are similar to one another tend to affect adversely a person’s willingness to be
authentic and to present their personal views to group members (Sim, 1998). Thus, it is
vital for the researcher to keep track of how sub-groups are affecting the focus group
discussion.
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) suggest the use of Venn diagrams to help the
moderators collect data regarding the interactions of these subgroups. Figure 1 includes
an example of a Venn diagram for sub-groups by gender. From this figure, there is
evidence that five “m’s” (i.e., males) responded to the first two questions, whereas only
one “f” (i.e., females) responded. This type of pattern is important to identify so that the
moderator could make changes. If this type of pattern is not identified until after the
conclusion of the focus group meeting, then changes could be made only for future
meetings of the focus group.
According to Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009), Venn diagrams are beneficial due to a
number of factors. First, the Venn diagram creates a template with which to collect data.
Second, the figure can be completed quickly and creates an efficient method for
collecting data. Third, information can be added to the figure by drawing circles or
arrows to represent patterns in the interactions of the members of the focus group.
Finally, subscripts could be used by the letters in the figure to assess how frequently the
person contributed to the interactions.
Another method for assessing the interaction patterns in a focus group is by
keeping track of words/utterances made by each subgroup and then counting and
comparing them. This method would help the researcher analyze whether one sub-group
dominated the discussion more than did others.
It should be noted that the micro-interlocutor data we recommend that focus
group researchers collect (e.g., consensus/dissent data, subgroup interaction data) should
not be used to replace data representing the actual voice of the focus group members.
Rather, it should be used to complement and supplement the voice, serving as both a
validation tool and as a tool to increase representation. Also, these data could be used to
help the researcher decide on which focus group members to conduct follow-up
individual interviews. For example, the qualitative researcher can decide to conduct
follow-up individual interviews on focus group members who spoke the most, on those
who spoke the least, or using some other observation stemming from the micro-
interlocutor data collection.

716 The Qualitative Report May 2010
Computer-mediated communication
There have been many recent advances in computer-mediated communication
(CMC) including the use of electronic interviewing. Thus, “virtual interviewing” is where
an Internet connection is utilized to study either synchronously or asynchronously a
situation or phenomenon. Benefits of CMC include decreasing problems with time,
location, and space of data collection; CMC being less expensive than traveling to
interview participants; promoting the ability to include participants from different
locations; ease of transcription (Biddix, 2008); researchers in different locations being
able to collaborate; possible access to participants in prisons, hospitals, and the like being
more easily accomplished; having better access to participants in certain circumstances
such as mothers with young children; and the researcher having more anonymity (Mann
& Stewart, 2000).
Figure 1. Venn diagram comparing the response patterns of the male (x) and female (y) focus
group members for the first two questions.
M m m
f m m
ffff
f
m
m
f f
f f
f
Question 1
Question 2
The focus group contains six males (m) and six females (f). The capital
letters denote the person who responded to the question first. Here, the
same male responded to both questions first. Also, five of the males
responded to both questions, as shown by the elements in the intersection,
whereas only one female responded to both questions. From this Venn
diagram representation, the researcher might conclude that males were
denominating the discussion pertaining to the first two questions. This
diagram can be extended to monitor the response patterns for more than
two questions. Also, a Venn diagram can be used to monitor other
demographic information deemed important.

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 717
CMC allows the research to be conducted on geographically diverse individuals
by bringing them together in chat rooms, mailing lists, and online groups. Furthermore,
CMC will assist researchers in evaluating online courses, online business services, and
online help services (Mann & Stewart, 2000). Researchers who use CMC will become
part of the fast growing Net Generation, which is a worldwide population of children,
adolescents, and young adults. Ninety-six percent of children aged eight to eighteen have
utilized the Internet. Of these, 74% have a computer at home, and 61% use the Internet.
One half of all children under six have used a computer; in fact, among four-to-six-year-
olds, 27% spend more than one hour a day utilizing the computer (Kaiser Family
Foundation, 2003). According to Grunwald (2003) more than two million US children
between the ages of six to seventeen have their own Web sites. Therefore, in the future it
is likely that the members of this generation will feel comfortable and even prefer being
interviewed using CMC. Researchers need to keep abreast of the new developments of
CMC and utilize this tool when collecting data.
When utilizing CMC, the interactions can be asynchronous or synchronous.
Asynchronous methods include those that can be conducted at various times such as
email, Multi User Dimensions, and websites. Synchronous methods include those that are
time sensitive, including blogs and instant messaging. Some CMC methods are already
utilized in multiple disciplines, such as instant messenger and network analysis.
A few of the more recent CMC tools have not yet been fully used in research
studies, including Facebook, MySpace.com, iTunes, iMovie, Youtube, Bebo, Friendster,
Orkut, Flickr, Panoramio, and Second Life. Yet, these tools have great potential. For
example, the social networking tool of Facebook (circa 2004) has more than 80 million
users worldwide. Facebook is a means to exchange social information and to network
with other individuals. Because people who utilize Facebook routinely share personal
information, stories, and so forth, in cyberspace, these individuals might be more
comfortable participating in research interviews via the Internet. Internet sites, including
Facebook, provide a great source for utilizing multiple types of sampling. Another
source, mobile telephones (i.e., SMS), also could be used for (short) interviews
(Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009).
Observations: Strategies for Collecting Visual Representation in Multiple Contexts
Geographic information system
A geographic information system (GIS), also known as a geospatial information
system, allows researchers to collect and analyze a structured database comprising
geographical features that are spatially oriented to Earth (Goodchild, Fu, & Rich, 2007;
Institute, 2009). These data are visually available to researchers in the forms of maps,
charts, and models. As a tool, GIS can play an important role in interpretivist research by
helping qualitative researchers to “think and reflect” spatially. GIS can integrate, relate,
accentuate, and present qualitative data with a spatial component, regardless of the source
of the data. Specifically, qualitative data can be integrated with GIS to enhance
researchers’ understanding of phenomena by providing more geographical and spatial
contexts to reveal trends, patterns, and relationships. For example, in the field of
sociology, researchers could use GIS—or other graphing applications—to map

718 The Qualitative Report May 2010
immigration activity across the United States over a period of time (see, for e.g.,
Dickinson, Hines, & Onwuegbuzie, 2007), and then link these data to qualitative-based
sociological data (e.g., housing, health, labor force participation, social justice, marriage
quality, social structure, social transformation, religion).
Photographs, videos, and drawings/paintings
Numerous qualitative researchers have advocated the use of photographs to
portray the insights gained via several disciplines, including cultural anthropology
(Collier & Collier, 1986), visual sociology (Becker, 1995), visual ethnography (Pink,
2001), visual culture, visual critical theory (Fuery & Fuery, 2003), marketing and
consumer research (Heisley & Levy, 1991), and the social sciences in general (Banks,
2001). Some researchers have been even more innovative in their calls, advocating the
collection of visual images from the participants themselves rather than from the
researchers (Ziller, 1990). For instance, Zaltman (1996) has provided his participants
with disposable cameras so that they could take their own photographs of scenes that are
deemed meaningful to them and that represent the researcher’s key concepts of interest.
The use of self-photographs has the potential to help research participants to express their
viewpoints and tell their stories more clearly and vividly, provide them with a topic or
issue about which to discuss, encourage them to reflect verbally on their views and
perspectives, and to entice them to offer additional information (Hall, Jones, Hall,
Richardson, & Hodgson, 2007). In a similar vein, participants can be asked to provide
self-videos.
Another innovative way of collecting observations is via self-cam. For example,
Teeters (2007) used self-cam with six young adult males, aged 18 to 20, with high-
functioning autism. The self-cam was a wearable camera system that allows a person to
collect video and audio from the movements of her or his own head and face. This self-
cam provides live feedback and video playback from the camera in an attempt to
experience and learn how participants look to others. The purpose of the study was to
evaluate the improvement of social cue recognition when the participants trained on
naturally situated videos of familiar faces compared with training on acted expressions of
unfamiliar faces. The video test assessed generalization at three levels of familiarity: the
participants’ own face, familiar faces, and faces of strangers.
Lastly, CMC tools can play an important role in promoting the use of
photographs, videos, and drawings/paintings in qualitative research. For example,
Youtube (circa 2005), which is a videosharing tool wherein users can upload, view, and
share video clips, might be used to house videos such that both researcher(s) and
participant(s) have ready and exclusive access to them. Panoramio (circa 2005), which is
a photosharing tool, might be used to share photographs, and MySpace.com (circa 2003)
and Flickr (circa, 2004) might be used to use both videos and photographs. For CMC-
based qualitative research conducted in Asia, Friendster (circa 2002) might be used.
Many of these CMC tools have the potential to revolutionalize what we refer to as online
arts-based inquiry—a form of qualitative research in which the researcher’s goal is
political activism (i.e., situated within the tradition of participatory critical action

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 719
research; Lincoln, 1995) and that is conducted and/or performed online. As can be seen,
CMC offers qualitative researchers many more possibilities.
Documents and material culture
By documents and material culture, we are referring to written texts and cultural
artifacts—evidence that in all its forms represent gendered, cultural, social, and political
construction, and which cannot be subjected to an interview or focus group; yet, its
interpretation holds a key to the meaning of the underlying lived cultural group or person.
This evidence, “unlike the spoken word, endures physically and thus cannot be separated
across space and time from its author, producer, or user” (Hodder, 2005, p. 703), which
gives historical insight but which almost always forces the qualitative researcher to take
an etic perspective.
Strategies for collating documents and material culture
Current hardware and software can play an important role in the collection of
documents and material culture. For example, documents can be accessed and/or collated
management software programs such as Refworks (Refworks, 2008). Refworks is a Web-
based bibliography and database manager. This software allows users to create their own
personal databases online by importing references from online databases or text files.
Moreover, Refworks is designed to help researchers easily gather, manage, store, and
share all types of information. Printed documents can be scanned and then imported into
Refworks. Alternatively, when three-dimensional artifacts are involved, they can be
photographed, and the image can be scanned and then imported, alongside any electronic
or scanned text, into select qualitative software programs that allow photographs to be
coded (e.g., QDA Miner 3.0; NVivo8).
Concluding Thoughts
As we begin a new decade in the 21st century, there is little doubt that we live in
times of methodological contestation—a period in which qualitative research is being
marginalized by proponents favoring the new “gold standard” for producing knowledge
in the conduct of research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005c). However, rather than framing a
response that demonizes quantitative research, as some writers of qualitative articles do,
we believe that a more constructive approach is to illustrate the utility of qualitative
research not only by demonstrating that it represents socially, culturally, ethnically, and
racially responsive, communitarian, justice-oriented research, but also by showing that it
represents a continuous iterative, interactive, and dynamic process that keeps abreast with
methodological innovation (i.e., 10th Movement) in terms of utilization of the latest
technological advancements and recognition of the various mental models (i.e.,
“particular constellation of assumptions, theoretical commitments, experiences, and
values through which a social inquirer conducts his or her work”; Greene, 2007). Thus,
the purpose of this article was to take a step, however small, in this latter direction by
providing an innovative meta-framework for collecting data in qualitative research and

720 The Qualitative Report May 2010
presenting various strategies for collecting data from interviews, focus groups,
observations, and documents/material culture.
A major focus among many qualitative researchers is to capture authentically the
lived experiences of people. According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005d), such experience,
it is argued, is created in the social text written by the researcher. This is the
representational problem. It confronts the inescapable problem of representation, but does
so within a framework that makes the direct link between experience and text
problematic (p. 19).
Denzin and Lincoln (2005d) refer to this problem as the crisis of representation.
Denzin and Lincoln (2005d) also argue for “a serious rethinking of such terms as validity,
generalizability, and reliability, terms already retheorized in postpositivist…,
constructivist-naturalistic…, feminist…, interpretive…, poststructural…, and
critical…discourses. This problem asks, ‘How are qualitative studies to be evaluated in
the contemporary, poststructural moment?’” (pp. 19-20). Denzin and Lincoln (2005d)
call this problem the crisis of legitimation. These authors also discuss what they term the
crisis of praxis in qualitative research. This crisis leads to the question, “Is it possible to
effect change in the world if society is only and always a text?” (p. 20).
We believe that many of the strategies presented in this article help, at least to
some degree, to address the crises of representation, legitimation, and/or praxis. For
example, the debriefing interview helps the researcher to reflect critically on researcher
bias in a systematic manner that can greatly enhance the legitimation of accounts of
social and behavioral phenomena (i.e., help to address the crisis of legitimation and
praxis). Obtaining debriefing information also can benefit the qualitative study’s design
and the researcher’s interpretations by clarifying the findings (i.e., help to address the
crisis of representation), elucidating possible problems (i.e., help to address the crisis of
legitimation and praxis), assisting the researcher in keeping bias from unduly influencing
the results (i.e., help to address the crisis of legitimation), and, above all, helping the
researcher understand the role that her/his bias is playing in the study (i.e., help to address
the crises of representation and legitimation). Indeed, our framework here is consistent
with Holstein and Gubrium’s (1995) concept of active interviews, wherein interviews
represent active meaning-making endeavors.
The concept of debriefing the interviewer promotes the idea that the interview
process represents a contextually based story that is not only co-constructed by the
participant(s) and the interviewer (cf. Gubrium & Holstein, 2002), but also reflects an
active and meaningful collaboration between the researcher and debriefing interviewer.
Moreover, debriefing interviews encourage the researcher to go beyond telling the story
(i.e., the what) by making transparent the processes, negotiations, and other interactive
facets that occur both between the participant and the interviewer and between the
researcher and debriefing interviewer (i.e., the how) and incorporating this information
into the final qualitative report. Indeed, if the researcher deems this form of story-telling
appropriate and meaningful, the debriefing interview process could facilitate the
researcher’s voice being interspersed with the participant’s voice in an auto-
ethnographical manner (Ellis & Berger, 2002)—which can yield deeper contextual
meaning (Banister, 1999). Further, the debriefing interview process can help the
interpretive researcher complete the hermeneutic circle of understanding (Warren, 2002).

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 721
In other words, routinely utilizing debriefing interviews as a facet of the data collection
process transforms the interview process into what Onwuegbuzie et al. (2008) call a
methodology of story-sharing (p. 14). Additionally, we contend that the debriefing
interview process can be used to extract more meaning from data collected via other
means such as observations and focus groups. These extensions to the debriefing
interview framework will be developed in subsequent articles, as will other techniques
for analyzing debriefing data.
The strategies we presented for collecting nonverbal communication data also
have the potential to address the triple crises of representation, legitimation, and praxis,
by providing richer data and promoting reflexivity. Further, the strategies we outlined for
incorporating computer-mediated communication can help to minimize issues associated
with time, location, and space, thereby increasing representation.
With respect to focus groups, we have provided a framework—what
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009, p. 3) term as micro-interlocutor data collection (i.e., strategies
for collecting information about consensus, strategies for collecting nonverbal
communication, and strategies for monitoring sub-groups)—for obtaining pertinent
information from focus group participants in qualitative research. We believe our
framework goes far beyond collecting only the verbal communication of focus group
participants. As such, we contend that our framework increases the rigor of focus group
methodology in qualitative research. With regard to observations, we outlined strategies
for collecting spatial information and for collecting visual representation, as a means of
enhancing meaning (i.e., representation), as was the case for the strategies we presented
for collating documents and material culture.
By keeping abreast with the latest technological advancements and mental
models, we believe that qualitative researchers have the potential to transcend the era of
methodological contestation and move towards a period of methodological innovation, in
which qualitative researchers go beyond the traditional ways of collecting primary and
reflexive data. In our view, the question should not be “if” but “when.”
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler P. (1987). Membership roles in field research (Qualitative
Research Methods Series 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Banister, E. M. (1999). Evolving reflexivity: Negotiating meaning of women’s midlife
experience. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 3-23.
Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London, England: Sage.
Becker, H. S. (1995). Visual sociology, documentary photography, and photojournalism:
It's (almost) all a matter of context. Visual Sociology, 10, 5-14.
Biddix, J. P. (2008). Multitasking CMC to study connected organizations. In S. Kelsey
and K. St.-Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer mediated
communication (Vol. 1, pp. 309-324). Hershey, NY: Information Science
Reference.
Bull, P. (2001). State of the art: Nonverbal communication. The Psychologist, 14, 644-
647.

722 The Qualitative Report May 2010
Butler, S. (1996). Child protection or professional self-preservation by the baby nurses?
Public health nurses and child protection in Ireland. Social Science and Medicine,
43, 303-314.
Collier, J., Jr., & Collier, M. (1986), Visual anthropology: Photography as a research
method (Rev. ed.). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (in press). Cooperative learning and
group dynamics among graduate students. Theory, research, and practice. New
York: New Methodology Press.
Crabtree, B. F., Yanoshik, M. K., Miller, W. L., & O’Connor, P. J. (1993). Selecting
individual or group interviews. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups:
Advancing the state of the art (pp. 137-149). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice. A research paradigm for the mixed
methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 270-283.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005a). The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative
research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005b). The Sage handbook of qualitative
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005c). Preface. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln,
(Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. ix-xix). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005d). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dickinson, W. B., Hines, C. V., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007, March). People, pattern,
and place: SAS/GRAPH data display of immigration activity across the United
States. Proceedings of the SAS Global Forum 2007 Conference. Cary, NC: SAS
Institute.
Duggleby, W. (2005). What about focus group interaction data? Qualitative Health
Research, 15, 832-840.
Ekman, P. (1972). Universal and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In
J. R. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1971 (pp. 207-283). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Ekman, P., & Friersen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal communication:
Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49-98.
Ellis, C., & Berger, L. (2002). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher’s
experience in interview research. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of
interview research: Context and method (pp. 849-876). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political
involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 723
Fuery, P., & Fuery, K. (2003). Visual cultures and critical theory. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Goodchild, M. F., Fu, P., & Rich, P. (2007, June). Sharing geographic information: An
assessment of the geo-spatial one-step. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 97, 250-266.
Gorden, R. I. (1980). Interview strategy techniques and tactics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greenbaum, T. L. (1998). The handbook for focus group research (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grunwald, P. (2003). Two million American children have their own web sites, broad
new Internet survey shows. Grunwald Associates. Retrieved January
11, 2010, from http://www.grunwald.com/surveys/cfi/newsrelease.php
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context and
method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hager, J. C., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (2002). Facial action coding system. Salt Lake
City, UT: A Human Face.
Hall, L., Jones, S., Hall, M., Richardson, J., & Hodgson, J. (2007). Inspiring design: The
use of photo elicitation and lomography in gaining the child’s perspective.
Retrieved June 30, 2008, from
http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0lha/Publications/2007/hall-jones-hall-
richardson-hodgson.pdf
Heisley, D. D., & Levy, S. J. (1991). Autodriving: A photoelicitation technique. Journal
of Consumer Research, 18, 257-272.
Hodder, I. (2005). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 703-
715). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Institute, E. S. R. (2009). Environmental Systems Research Institute. Retrieved June 21,
2009, from http://www.gis.com/whatisgis/index.html
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2003). New study finds children age zero to six spend as
much time with TV, computers, and video games as playing outside. Menlo Park,
CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia102803nr.cfm
Kelly, S. D., Barr, D. J., Church, R. B., & Lynch, K. (1999).Offering a hand to pragmatic
understanding: The role of speech and gesture in comprehension and memory.
Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 577–592.
Kidd, P., & Marshall, M. (2000). Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical
rigor in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 293-308.

724 The Qualitative Report May 2010
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction
between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 18, 103-121.
Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y., & Chawla, P. (1996). Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal
communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental and social psychology (pp. 389-450). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A
call for qualitative data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22,
557-584.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of
techniques and a framework for selection for school psychology research and
beyond. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 587-604.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275-289.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity
in naturalistic inquiry. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation (Program
Evaluation Series No. 30, pp. 73-84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 835-850). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Magnusson, M. S. (1996). Hidden real-time patterns in intra- and inter-individual
behaviour: Description and detection. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 12, 112-123.
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A
handbook for researching online (New Technologies for Social Research Series).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62, 279–299.
McCafferty, S. G. (1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 73-96.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Qualitative
Research Methods Series 16. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T., & Leech, N. L. (2008a). A tale of two stories:
Qualitative researchers’ reporting practices pertaining to nonverbal

Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, and Kathleen M. T. Collins 725
communication in interviews and focus groups. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T., & Leech, N. L. (2008b). A framework for
collecting and analyzing nonverbal communication data in interviews and focus
groups in qualitative research. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). Toward
more rigor in focus group research: A new framework for collecting and
analyzing focus group data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1-
21.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2008). Interviewing the
interpretive researcher: A method for addressing the crises of representation,
legitimation, and praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7, 1-18.
Retrieved February 5, 2009, from
https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/index
Paisley, P. O., & Reeves, P. M. (2001). Qualitative research in counseling. In D. C.
Locke, J. E. Myers, & E. L. Herr (Eds.), The handbook of counseling (pp. 481-
498). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography. London, England: Sage.
RefWorks. (2008). RefWorks [Computer software]. Bethesda, MD: Author.
Ricci Bitti, P. E., & Poggi, I. A. (1991). Symbolic nonverbal behavior: Talking through
gestures. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rimé (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal
behavior (pp. 433-457). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, E. (2009). The science of measuring and understanding facial expression:
Expert consultation and training using the facial action coding system (FACS).
Retrieved June 21, 2009, from http://www.erikarosenberg.com/FACS.html
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simple systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Schwandt, T. A. (2007). Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Silverman, D. (Ed.). (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus
group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28, 345-352.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Teeters, A. C. (2007). Use of a wearable camera system in conversation: Toward a
companion tool for social-emotional learning in autism. Retrieved June 30, 2008,
from http://affect.media.mit.edu/pdfs/07.Teeters-sm.pdf
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education
and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vidich, A. J., & Lyman, S. M. (2000). The history in sociology and anthropology. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.
37-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Warren, C. A. B. (2002). Qualitative interviewing: In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.),
Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 83-101). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

726 The Qualitative Report May 2010
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group in health research: Exploring the meanings of health
and illness. Journal of Health Psychology, 3, 329-348.
Zaltman, G. (1996). Metaphorically speaking: New technique uses multidisciplinary
ideas to improve qualitative research. Marketing Research, 8, 13-20.
Ziller, R. C. (1990), Photographing the self: Methods for observing personal
orientations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Author’s Note
Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Ph.D. is professor in the Department of Educational Leadership
and Counseling at Sam Houston State University. He teaches doctoral-level courses in qualitative
research, quantitative research, and mixed research, as well as teacher education courses and
educational psychology courses. His research areas primarily involve social and behavioral
science topics, including disadvantaged and under-served populations such as minorities, children
living in war zones, students with special needs, and juvenile delinquents. Also, he has conducted
numerous research studies on factors that predict educational achievement at the primary,
secondary, and tertiary levels. Additionally, he writes extensively on qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methodological topics applicable to multiple disciplines within the field of the social and
behavioral sciences. Dr. Onwuegbuzie has secured the publication of more than 230 refereed
journal articles and 50 book/encyclopedia chapters. Correspondence should be addressed to
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Box 2119,
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas 77341-2119, or E-Mail:
tonyonwuegbuzie@aol.com.
Nancy L. Leech, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver.
Dr. Leech is currently teaching master’s and Ph.D. level courses in research, statistics, and
measurement. Her area of research is promoting new developments and better understandings in
applied qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodologies. To date, she has published more than
45 articles in refereed journals, and is co-author of four books, all published by Taylor and
Francis. Phone: (303) 315-6327 ; E-mail: nancy.leech@ucdenver.edu.
Kathleen M. T. Collins, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum
and Instruction at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. To date, she has published more
than 60 research articles, book chapters, and encyclopedia chapters and presented more than 70
research papers at international, national, and regional conferences. Dr. Collins' interests are in
research methodological issues as they pertain to mixed research, special populations, and the
identification and assessment of literacy problems of post-secondary students. Phone: (479) 575-
4218; E-mail: kxc01@uark.edu.
Copyright 2010: Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech, Kathleen M. T. Collins, and
Nova Southeastern University
Article Citation
Onwuegbuzie, A., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2010). Innovative data collection strategies
in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 696-726. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/onwuegbuzie.pdf