Qualitative In-Depth Interviews - Science method

NVivo has a series of 43 tutorials at:

I also like the series of NVivo videos on YouTube by Philip Adu (but personally, I prefer MAXDDA for my own work, just because I find its interface more comfortable).

You are very far away from any data analysis if you don't know whether you will be doing a t-test (compares two means calculated from data on a measurement scale with a defined unit) or in-depth interviews.

You need to look at your research question. If you need to understand perceptions, experiences, meanings, values, then you have a qualitative question. Examples might be how do people react to the news that they have early dementia?, or what's it like for local people living in a city that's swamped by tourists? In these cases, you don't know what you will find (always fun!) and need to talk to people to start to understand their experiences etc.

On the other hand, if you want to see if people who develop dementia have higher mean blood sugar levels than people who don't, or you want to see if people who disapprove of tourism are older than people who approve, then you need a t-test.

Very different research questions. So until you have formulated your research question and decided how you will collect your data, your question is a bit like asking "should I buy a pen or an ice cream?". Until we understand what you are trying to do, we can't help with the answer.

You could use the same "conceptual bases" for your question that were the underlying goals of the original measures. But I'm not sure what the point would be, and I certainly would not start the interviews with those kinds of pre-conceptions.

Added validation in any event does not hurt. However, the main aim is to ensure that your questions are understandable to the respondents and that they are crafted well enough to obtain the responses needed to satisfy your research.

Narrative research is the study of experience through stories and, although its primary use is carried out in Literature, it is also used in the Psychological Clinic and in the Forensic Expert when analyzing the "Remembrance of events" that do the subjects that are the object of Forensic Expertise: A narrative or story is a symbolized account of a sequence of events and actions important to the narrator and his audience, which has a temporal dimension. It is a way used by people to tell their important events and experiences, and for the researcher a good way to study the meanings and motives of the experience. Those expressed in online environments are characterized by being written narratives, usually in the first person, which meet the characteristics of sequentiality, factual indifference and temporality, and which are co-constructed. Narrative analysis is interested in how a narrator or writer assembles and sequences events, and how he uses language and / or visual images to communicate meaning. There are many ways to narrate the experience or recall the events and IT IS NEVER PASSIVE !: the way a narrator, remembrer, writer or visual artist chooses how to do it is significant. Of the four methodological approaches to the analysis of individual and group narratives, perhaps the main one that focuses on thematic narrative analysis.

Hi I used a theoretical framework for my PhD with in-depth interviews on 67 participants. I conducted my interviews first, while at the same time researching theories. Then after I had the interview data I found it easier to find a theoretical framework to best explore the qualitative in-depth interview material. You can use any theories you like, the key is finding theories that can best help you make sense of your material. Hope this helps you. Good luck with your research, your topic sounds interesting and timely.

I would count it as one mention, because what's important is the number of INTERVIEWEES who mention a theme, not the number of mentions. If one interviewee returned to a theme 13 times, it would be seriously misleading to simply report this as 13 mentions.

I follow

Hello,

Are these of any help:

Jaber, O. A. (2016). An Examination of Variables Influencing the Acceptance and Usage of E-Learning Systems in Jordanian Higher Education Institutions (Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff Metropolitan University).

Vogelsang, K., Steinhüser, M., & Hoppe, U. (2013). A qualitative approach to examine technology acceptance.

Money, A. G., Atwal, A., Young, K. L., Day, Y., Wilson, L., & Money, K. G. (2015). Using the Technology Acceptance Model to explore community dwelling older adults’ perceptions of a 3D interior design application to facilitate pre-discharge home adaptations. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 15(1), 73.

But I'm not sure whether these are just what you need.

Very best wishes,

Mary

1. NVivo

2. ATLAS.ti

3. QDA Miner

No!  Literature review is not a qualitative research method.

Actually,  literature review is related to preparing conceptual foundation or theory building and becomes the basis of hypotheses formulation.

From my experience, Computer-generated transcription can provide some support. For example, you can upload your audio file to YouTube and click the box that generates a transcription. This is completely free — just be sure to mark your file as “private” if you’re just uploading to get the transcription. The singular caveat is that you there is a level of uncertainty on the accuracy side, that you still require you to confirm by checking.

Transcribe is another computer tool that can assist: https://transcribe.wreally.com

As the site suggests: Transcribe offers an audio player that's tightly integrated with a text editor on the same screen. In other words – you hear the text, and you type it. 

The plus side is that there is no more switching back and forth between the audio player and the editor.

Google Docs offers a speech to text option. It appears to work well and a big plus is that it is free. You can use it manually or go to: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/4492226?hl=en

Dragon voice recognition software is also another voice recognition software with potential; again, you have to consider the set up time to ensure the most accurate transcription – and this does not include the interviewees voice recognition.

Other options include:

Transcription services

Large transcription companies can give you cheaper rates if you’re not committed to working with a single transcriptionist. A few popular options include:

Transcribeme:  http://transcribeme.com

Offers transcription delivery within one to seven days. A 10-minute recording with two speakers and a two-to-three day turnaround, for instance, costs about $20. Longer recordings requested with one-day turnaround will be the most expensive, around $4 a minute.

Scribie:  https://scribie.com/

 This service can accommodate almost any project. Its express service, with turnaround in 8-12 hours, costs $3.00 per minute. If you can wait up to a month for your completed transcription, you can pay as low as $.80 per minute.

Rev:  https://www.rev.com/transcription

Rev’s pricing is the most simple: just $1 per recorded minute with 24-hour turnaround. The only extras that cost more are adding timestamps or requesting verbatim transcription, in which you’ll see all of the “mmhmms” and “uhhs” that were recorded.

Voice Base:  https://www.voicebase.com/

This service prices based on turnaround time and accuracy. The most expensive level, which guarantees 99% accuracy and includes speaker identification, costs $2.00 per minute with a five-to-seven-day turnaround. That rate goes up to $2.50 per minute if you need the file in a maximum of four days. Need it in a day? That’ll cost you $3.00 per recorded minute.

So, all in all, the best solution is likely a combination of the above based on your own time constraints, how quickly you will need the information, and whether or not you want to pay to have the services provided by someone else.

Lastly, I do know that a one hour interview will generate 20 -30 pages of typed notes, so taking time to identify the pros and cons of an approach is well worth the time and effort it will take you.

Thank you Chris and Kate for your help. You're right, I needed to be more explicit on what criteria the indicators needed to meet. I had a spreadsheet from each case study which showed the criteria each indicator met but I need to map that more clearly in NVivo through my coding structure. 

I struggled to find articles that showed empirically grounded qualitative resilience indicators that showed that link between mapping the framework onto the analysis.

Thank you both again,

Kate

@Freidoon Zibaei

Hello, will you let me know what the matter is? Any input and discussion is welcome.

Dear Harshi,

Most qualitative data management Softwares are user-friendly and different qualitative researchers prefer different ones over the other. Personally, I think they are basically the same, all you need is to apply yourself to learn how they work. The most common ones used are Nvivo and Atlas.ti. 

Remember that these Softwares, by themselves, do not analyse the data as in the case of quantitative software, but they are valuable in organising your data and provide useful tools for classifying and organising the data analysis process. They can be very useful especially when handling huge qualitative data sets and when data is obtained from various sources as it is in your case. The primary tool for qualitative data analysis remains the researcher or investigators who analyse the data based on the objectives of the study.

Hope this helps.

Concepts such as face validity and construct vanity typically come from quantitative research, where they refer to the successful measurement of variables. So, their relevance to qualitative interviews is limited.

If instead, your question is how to create an effective interview, then I would recommend the advice of doing some pre-test or trial interviews and "debriefing" with the participants afterwards to get their reactions. Another strategy is start by talking to "key informants" who know a great deal about the area you are researching.

Thank you very much, Professor Gandini, I was searching for your work and I'm pleasent to hear from you and read it.

You can consider software tools like NVivo, ATLAS.ti, MAXQDA etc. that you can access - you can perform Google search from Internet on their websites for more information, how to download a free trial copy etc.  If you also want to see how these tools are being used step by step, you can perform a YouTube search as well.

Based on my personal experience, I still observe some researchers perform the qualitative data analysis manually (pens & hardcopy papers) & semi-automatically (via Excel to copy & paste transcribed text into spreadsheet for coding analysis, create computer's folders to store / retrieve all artifacts etc)

Refer to the first answer above for software tools

Advantages of using software tools:

Advantages of using manual method:

Dear Latefa,

In answering your question, let me pose several questions:

1. When you say "the use of one interview ( among 15) as the core case study of your research" do you mean that it was the only one analyzed or the one you'd like to draw on most for representing findings? There's a big difference between analysis and representation.

2. What is your research question? Too often people present general questions, when the answer so intrinsically depends on the research question. For instance, as mentioned by pervious commentators, the answer is quite different if your question is one wherein you'd like to compare and make inferences that are more generalizable (although not truly generalizable of course), than if your question is one wherein you want to make no claim as to an experience qua experience (phenomenology), but more of a possible unfolding of an experience (e.g., narrative).

3. Why seek an external "justification"? Or, put otherwise, what is the true reason you want to do this? More important than finding a "good" justification", I would say, is revealing transparently why it is you want to do this. What is your justification? Write that justification. It may also help you realize for yourself (reflexively) what it is you are actually pursuing in your research. 

On a practical note: if you indeed are seeking a comparative research question, then the answer to your question is that you should analyze all of the interviews and compare them (by the way, you should attempt to stick to your research proposal as much as possible, but you may make alterations -and should do so - if you have a good reason of your own). When presenting findings you may say something along the lines of "As I present the findings, I will draw primarily on one case (Mary, altered name) due to its richness. The other stories will serve as auxiliary means in those instances where Mary's story resembles other cases"

Hope this helps.

Best,

Cobi.

 Dear Maria,

To add a few more for your reference.

Thanks!

I think of both of these as variations on a fairly generic, inductive approach to  analysis. The best known alternative within this group of techniques is thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which is very similar to framework analysis.

Between the two methods that you mentioned, I would identify IPA as closer to your goal to "understand the individual experience deeply." This is due to its background in phenomenology, but that does apply more to its theoretical origins than its manifest procedures.

RQDA is an extension for R, so if you use RQDA, you are using R as Aleksandar suggests! It is certainly reliable, and can perform the actions you need. However, the interface is a little complicated, and can take some getting used to. QDA Miner Lite is another free alternative, which will perform many of the basic tasks.

There are many other non-free alternatives which you may find easier to use, including Nvivo, MaxQDA, Dedoose, AtlasTI and our own, Quirkos. For an impartial comparison, the University of Surrey CAQDAS group (http://www.surrey.ac.uk/sociology/research/researchcentres/caqdas/support/choosing/) provides detailed reviews. Good luck!

I will be very please to see the results of this important work.

Muhammad, be assured that after you graduate, people will still advise you to do as you are told. Resistance to new thinking is very common. So if you want to do your own thinking in this world, you will need to learn to sell yourself and your ideas. 

Your adviser is especially resistant, so you need a way to sell your approach that he will accept. Here's a thought: Identify other qualitative researchers in your department who have taken your approach, at least to some degree, and talk with them to learn why. Search the references of your adviser's publications for other researchers who have also done that. Look especially for examples that your adviser may accept, because of the way it is done or who is doing it. Then, when you are ready, have a conversation with your adviser about the approach that so-and-so takes in this paper, and might that also be worth considering for your project?  

65

The first thing to do is to is to run a Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney with the option to give the probability that a person from one group will score higher than a person from the other group. So in stata this would be

. ranksum score, by(group) porder

The porder option is the one you need.

This gives the area under the ROC. If this is not promising, that's more or less the end of the analysis. If it looks good, then tell us.

I found this book very helpful to understand mixed methods for beginner... 

Hi Fatimah,

I'll give you my two cents worth on audio recorders as I have no experience with video recorders in qualitative studies.

If its a one off study with a small sample- it would be cheaper to use a mobile phone/tablet or similar if its in a quiet setting.

However if you are going to be continuously conducting qualitative studies and  doing audio recordings it would be wise to invest in a dedicated digital recorder such as Sony or Olympus- they don't cost too much. I have experience with both brands of recorders and they do a great job of isolating the interviewer's and participant's voices especially with the external mic which is supplied with the recorder. I was involved in one particular  interview which was done next door to a very loud party, but the recorder picked up the interviewer's and participant's voices only, and the recording was very clear.

When purchasing a voice recorder it is important to check if you need to import the digital recordings using the company's own proprietary software- which can be very annoying when operating systems are upgraded but not the software.

For example I have a Sony recorder whose software for retrieving the voice recordings can only be done on a 32bit Windows XP computer. So be careful when purchasing a recorder.

All the best for your study.

If you have enough participants, I would go with phenomenography as the guiding qual approach, a bit obscure, very popular in Sweden and Europe in general. Written narratives are acceptable. Let me know if you want more info...

The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child is a working group based at Harvard doing extensive work in examining resilience for adverse childhood events in general.  This includes the chaotic home environments that can be experienced by children of parents with substance use issues, rather than specific adverse experiences.  The research focuses on the mechanisms of resilience and how to promote resilience in children; however, the findings are equally relevent for adults.  

Individuals need strong social interaction, coping and stress management skill sets, as well as warm, supportive relationships to navigate life and thrive. Individuals growing up in homes with substance abuse and many other parental challenges often do not receive adequate warmth and nurturing within their family of origin because of the ways that parental substance use alter family systems.  Adaptive social interaction and coping skills are frequently absent in adult children of substance users as well, as the opportunities to learn those skills from parents can be infrequent or absent.  

Through supportive mentoring relationships through work, education, softball leagues, what have you, as well as counseling and various other experiences adults can build these skills and capacities over time and be resilient.

I am coming into this discussion late so apologies if this has already been covered. From your two suggested options Mashael (thematic or IPA), just based on your numbers alone, I would suggest that IPA is not suitable. IPA is very idiographic and focuses more on the experience of the individual and as such sample numbers are usually smaller, ranging from 1-12ish people. You get masses of data from IPA as it is so in depth - you would be swamped with data for 40 people. IPA is also concerned about how people experience/make meaning of an event such as having an illness. As others have suggested it depends on your research question and aim - based on these it could be content analysis, thematic or grounded theory (among others). As above I have used Braun & Clarke's guide to thematic analysis - these authors have also recently released a book on qualitative research which was useful. Wishing you luck in your project!

ATLAS.ti - NVivo comparison: One of the main difference is the margin area. If you are used to working with ATLAS.ti you are going to miss the margin area in NVivo. This is the place on the right-hand side of  the screen that displays codes, memos, and hyperlinks. NVivo has coding stripes, but this is not the same. Another difference is that ATLAS.ti starts with the quotation level. There is no need to code right away, you can first mark interesting sections in your data, name them (e.g. provide small titles) and write your first thoughts, initial interpretations into the comment field of the quotations. This level is missing in NVivo and I would say an important element if you want to do phenomenology. Depending on your approach to PA, the use of software may not be appropriate at all, e.g. if you follow Van Manen. For more "pragmatic" approaches like IPA, it may be an option. And if so, I would chose ATLAS.ti over NVivo because of the quotation level. 

NVivo does have nice features that ATLAS.ti does not have but for different type of data and analyses. 

I disagree with Jane that 10 or 12 interviews would be a small data set, too small to utilized a software package. It really depends on which level of analysis you want to use it and which features of the software you want to use. It is not all about coding. A lot of analysis happens while you write - and software allows you to link your writing directly to the data and to retrieve it in and with the context of your data. If you do it all manually (does this mean on paper?), then how do your sort your notes, how do you find an important idea? A quick text search quickly brings you to the node you have been looking for. Using a progam like ATLAS.ti or NVivo just for coding  - well yes, this can lead to the impression that it is only good for larger data sets. This is a possibility, but not the only one.

Ahhh, you have hit upon the problem of licensing! As an alternative construct, I typically use tools to measure self-efficacy. More specifically, I am firm follower of Kate Lorig's self-efficacy for chronic illness tool, which is valid, reliable, and free!

I am attaching a link to the tool. There is also a shortened scale that retains the validity of the longer scale.

Kate Lorig recently wrote a review article on the tool. I'll dig it up and post it.

I hope this helps

Ariel

Today there are recorders that can connect to the phone, recording audio with great quality, some are well priced and a good qualitative researcher should have one!

Good luck! 

Given your area of interest, I am presuming you have read the work of Sandra Nutley and Huw Davies. So I'll move on to talk about vignettes; then 'talk aloud' methods and phenomenological analysis.

First, which model of vignettes are you thinking of using.  There are two distinct models in the literature [I can give you full citations, for anything you are particularly interested in following up.] which as far as I can tell have not been differentiated by name. 

One model (which we might call the 'completion vignette') is to present a scenario and then ask the respondents what they would do next (see for example Jenkins et al (2010). "Putting it in context: the use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing " Qualitative Research 10(2): 175-198.). There are multiple models of such vignettes including some which ask for responses at different stages and locations along a decision-tree (Jenkins et al).

Completion vignettes have some similarities with methods used in cognitive research to test decision-making processes (e.g. Tversky 1969) though the 'tasks' in cognitive research tend to be quite narrow and less complex than vignettes.

The second model of vignette, (which we might call the 'discussion vignette' is to present a complete scenario and ask  respondents to discuss. 

Analysing data from either approach has issues.  The discussion vignettes have been subjected to some debate as to whether they tap into decision-making or are subject to social desirability bias (Hughes and Huby 2004; Parkinson and Manstead 1993; Spratt 2001) or not (Rahman 1996; McKeagney et al 1996). O'Dell et al (2012) argue that social desirability bias is not important if one uses a constructivist analysis as it reveals the underlying construction of such responses. Personally I think it is hard to avoid social desirability bias in this model and that you don't get a good read on probable decisions.

Completion vignettes do not appear to be as susceptible to social desirability bias and are very good at obtaining data that is not generally presented in discussions or direct questioning. However, it is important that the vignette be 'plausible' (Jenkins et al 2010; Lilienfeld et al  2000). Your approach of basing the vignette on observations is very important.  The further the vignette is from the participant's experience the less useful it appears to be.

[Given your interest in phenomenology you may be interested in Jenkins et al (op cit) argument that the underlying mechanism for vignettes is use of a 'Thou-orientation'.  I agree that orientation is crucial but I think they misinterpret Schutz ('Thou' relates to one's experience of the other's  behaviour and explicitly excludes one's interpretation of the  cognitive processes).  Instead I suggest that Schutz's notions of 'typification' and schema offer more powerful  tools for analysis.]

In analysis it is also important to realise that decisions are often inconsistent because:

a) decisions are predicated on judgments

b) judgements are highly contextual and often largely based on 'System 1 thinking' - and on heuristics. (There is a very large literature on heuristics; if you are interested, you might want to start with Kahneman 'Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow').

From a phenomenological perspective one would characterise the variability of judgements as the activation of different schemata (System 1) and one might try and analyse the responses from that perspective.

I hypothesise that the reduced social desirability bias in completion vignettes may be because it 'elicits' response from the participants, who are responding 'more intuitively' to the scenario, using implicit knowledge from a schema: rather than 'discussing' the scenario explicitly. In completion vignettes, they are more likely to be using a preponderance of System 1 thinking  - which is more responsive and less concerned with self-presentation - than system 2 Thinking.

An important caveat is that it is difficult to assert that responses to completion vignettes are accurate reflections of probable behaviour (see Jenkins op cit). There is some literature that shows that other 'elicitation techniques' are good predictors of behavior (Breivik et al) but I am not aware of any evidence for the construct validity of vignettes.

I am not familiar with Gupta's use of talk aloud techniques. My experience with them is mainly in usability testing, survey design or in cognitive research.  David Morgan's reference is good: also Sudman,  Bradburn and Schwarz (1996) "Thinking About Answers", San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.   

I have found 'Talk Aloud' a particularly useful for analysis of participant tasks (such as responding to a survey question, or  an elicitation stimulus).  I would think they would also be very useful for analysing responses to a completion vignette.   The method is really good at uncovering the details of thinking that led to a particular response in a task. 

For analysis of think aloud techniques, I have used both simultaneous think aloud and retrospective think aloud; and there are advantages and disadvantages to both.  My favourite approach is to video the original participant task, sat the participant down to review the task and stop the video to ask for explanations used think aloud - also videoing the talk aloud.  I look for inconsistencies in explanation, the use of metaphor and pronouns and probe such responses quite rigorously.  For example, 'Category instance generation' is used in cognitive science.  It entails asking the participant to specify examples whenever a metaphor is used in their conversation. A metaphor is a heuristic that 'explains' something without having to do so - it is implicit knowledge.  My aim is to try and flesh out the schema being used and understand the halo of connotations that  the participant attaches to a metaphor.

Afterwards I will use different analytical methods depending on purpose.  I have used a  spread sheet of quotes and observations linking both interviews along one row.  I have also used InVivo for text analysis. 

Phenomenological Analysis 

I have found Smith, Flowers & Larkin (2009) "Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research" London, Sage -  a really useful primer on phenomenological research and analytical techniques.

Dear Joaquin, Edison and Sarah

I really appreciate your suggestions on this.  I'll explore Atlas and Nvivo - intuitive sounds good, especially to a reluctant techno like me.  I've only just moved on from papering the room with Post-it notes....

Best to all,

Alison

A good source for tracking recent work on interaction in focus groups would be citations to:

Duggleby, W. (2005). What about focus group interaction data? Qualitative Health Research, 15, 832-840.

I agree with Lisa's original comment that it isn't necessarily important to track the actual interaction in focus groups -- that depends on your purposes, which could well match what Mats is proposing. Here is another citation where I make the point: "saying that the interaction in focus groups produces the data is not the same as saying that the interaction itself is the data" (p. 718)

Morgan, D. L. (2010). Reconsidering the role of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 718–722.

I found Mark (2003) helpful in my understanding of the problem about which I asked the original question; the following is from my write-up of my 10 year follow-up study: "Mark (2003) describes people’s sociodemographic characteristics as defining their position in a multidimensional social space, and gives the example of people’s age and education define a two dimensional ‘social space’; those who are of a comparable age and level of education are located near each other in this social space. When participants felt comfortable in being able to give or receive help, this was facilitated by additional common characteristics, located them together in this ‘social space’." Ref. Mark N (2003) Culture and competition: homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches, American Sociological Review 68(3): 319-344.

You could try and start off by providing them with a scenario - predominantly to build rapport but also to come at it from a different angle. For example, you could say: " If you were the FIFA president and had £10 million to spend on football pitches - what kind would you go for and why? Or, if you were the football manager for X, what kind of surface would you train your team on and why?

Good luck! Sounds real interesting!

Charmaz (2006) discusses using extant texts such as existing published and unpublished materials that you did not collect personally in Chapter 2 in her book. She recommends putting the individual sources you are using into their appropriate context by answering the following questions: (1) How was this source of data obtained? (2) Who produced it? (3) What was the purpose of the original researchers who collected the data? (4) Does the meaning in the data reflect their historical, social, and/or organizational context? (5) How was the data structured? (6) What categories can you find within the data? (7) Who benefits from the data? (8) What comparisons can you make between your data sources? (9) How is language used? (10) How does this data relate to other data on the same topic? (11) Are their any unintended meanings within the data?

She also mentions a study she recommends that used archival data by Cynthia Bogard (2001) and highlights how the author situates the data within the historical, social, and geographical context using multiple sources of data such as newspapers, television reports, and research. It may be helpful for you to reference her article as an example,

Bogard, C. (2001). Claimsmakers and contexts in early constructions of homelessness: A comparison of New York City and Washington, D.C. Symbolic Interaction, 24, 425-454.

I would also recommend using Charmaz (2006) for more information regarding grounded theory analysis and methods. You can absolutely code, memo, and use constant comparison with your data.

I'm in a similar situation right now: I just transcribed a first load of interviews, and after following a two-day course on the use of NVivo, I was convinced of the added value of this software. It's just not 'doable' for me to go through transcriptions of 84 interviews of about 30-40 minutes each and manually code everything.

But it's of the utmost importance to go through them 'by hand' at least once, I think: I've selected - at random - ten interviews, with a few brightly coloured highlighters as my weapons in battle, in order to see for myself what the most important topics are. In that way I could make a rough sketch of the different topics and answers in the interviews, which will make the fine-grained coding in NVivo a lot easier. So qualitative research software definitely has added value, but its value is ADDED: on top of what do for yourself first. A computer cannot think for itself.

Good luck, and enjoy your data - for me it was a whole new world opening up :-)

Thank you for your answers.

I've already noticed that most popular themes are related (if not to the affective-sexual education) to health aspects, but what about adolescents as persons with life projects? or how do they really live pregnancy? (as Christine Morton refered: researches about narratives from teen moms). As the OMS stated last year, there is a huge link between early pregnancies and poverty. Teen mothers without resources understand motherhood as an alternative to their limited opportunities.

As Attia said, health risks linked to early childbearing had been widely studied and proved , but what about governmental responses?

Hey Cayetano, you know the internet never forgets. So you can still download the last version via archive.org. It is described here: http://www.sosciso.de/en/2013/f4-alt-und-kostenlos/

Stacey,

i found this online in a responce to a similar question. you might gain some useful ideas from (Nicole B) the answer. Interesting topic. Would love to see the results.

Visual Accessing Cues

The first time "Visual Accessing Cues" were discussed (at least to my knowledge), was by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in their book "Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) " From their experiments this is what they found:

When asked a question a "normally organized" right-handed person looks (from your viewpoint, looking at them):

Up and to the Left

Indicates: Visually Constructed Images (Vc)

If you asked someone to "Imagine a purple buffalo", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Visually Constructed" a purple buffalo in their mind.

Up and to the Right

Indicates: Visually Remembered Images (Vr)

If you asked someone to "What color was the first house you lived in?", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Visually Remembered" the color of their childhood home.

To the Left

Indicates: Auditory Constructed (Ac)

If you asked someone to "Try and create the highest the sound of the pitch possible in your head", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Auditorily Constructed" this this sound that they have never heard of.

To the Right

Indicates: Auditory Remembered (Ar)

If you asked someone to "Remember what their mother's voice sounds like ", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they "Auditorily Remembered " this sound.

Down and to the Left

Indicates: Feeling / Kinesthetic (F)

If you asked someone to "Can you remember the smell of a campfire? ", this would be the direction their eyes moved in while thinking about the question as they used recalled a smell, feeling, or taste.

Down and To the Right

Indicates: Internal Dialog (Ai)

This is the direction of someone eyes as they "talk to themselves".

The Gist of it...

How this information is used to detect lies:

Example: Let's say your child ask's you for a cookie, and you ask them "well, what did your mother say?" As they reply "Mom said... yes." they look to the left. This would indicate a made up answer as their eyes are showing a "constructed image or sound. Looking to the right would indicated a "remembered" voice or image, and thus would be telling the truth.

Related Books:

Frogs into Princes

Never be Lied to Again

Final Notes:

*** Looking straight ahead or with eyes that are defocused/unmoving is also considered a sign of visual accessing.

*** A typical left-handed person would have the opposite meanings for their eye-directions.

*** As with other signs of lying, you should first establish and understand a persons base-behavior before concluding they are lying by the direction of their eyes.

*** Many critics believe the above is a bunch of bull***t. In my own experiments I have found these techniques to be more true than not. But, why not find out for yourself? Make up a list of questions that like the sample ones, and give them to your friends/family anyone who would be your guinea pig, observe their eye movements and record the results.

*** This guide is hardly in-depth, I recommend getting the book "Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming" by Richard Bandler and John Grinder for a more thorough explanation.

Basically, what you need to do is to create a memo or an empty RTF file to hold your transcript, use it as a primary document, and transcribe your audio/video data in edit mode, synchronizing it with your multimedia file as you transcribe. They say it is really that simple. I will check it out.

To answer more specifically, the most flexible methodology I have found is called Thematic Analysis. It allowed me flexibility to deal with very different responses from participants from several different cultures in the same inquiry. I have used NVivo, which I would call a tool rather than a method, and it is handy, but a bit expensive. Likewise, TA is an analytic system rather than a method, per se, but it allows one to gather diverse data via interview and make sense of it. Ref: Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytical tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405.