A Dissertation by GRACE HUI-CHIN LIN Submitted to the Office of ...
A Dissertation by GRACE HUI-CHIN LIN Submitted to the Office of ...
A Dissertation by GRACE HUI-CHIN LIN Submitted to the Office of ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
According <strong>to</strong> Denzin and Lincoln (1994), member check established <strong>the</strong> credibility in<br />
qualitative inquiry. “The researcher needs <strong>to</strong> find a way <strong>to</strong> allow for <strong>the</strong> participants<br />
<strong>to</strong> review <strong>the</strong> material one way or ano<strong>the</strong>r” (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 216).<br />
Therefore, this study conducted <strong>the</strong> member check <strong>by</strong> emailing <strong>the</strong> coded English<br />
transcriptions <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> seven respondents. Then, <strong>by</strong> telephone, <strong>the</strong> 7 respondents <strong>of</strong>fered<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir feedback on reading <strong>the</strong> interpretations in <strong>the</strong> coded English transcriptions.<br />
In this study, <strong>the</strong> member check processes were conducted twice. The first<br />
time, <strong>the</strong> member check was conducted between <strong>the</strong> first interview at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> 5<br />
weeks training and <strong>the</strong> second interview at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> 10 weeks training. The first<br />
member check was for ensuring <strong>the</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> coded transcriptions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first<br />
interview. The seven respondents checked <strong>the</strong> coded data from <strong>the</strong> first interview and<br />
expanded <strong>the</strong>ir previous specific perceptions with more details, which <strong>the</strong>y would<br />
express in <strong>the</strong> second interview. Holstein and Bubrium (1995) emphasized that <strong>the</strong><br />
second round <strong>of</strong> interviews could be significant because it <strong>of</strong>fered <strong>the</strong> respondents an<br />
opportunity <strong>to</strong> recall what <strong>the</strong>y said in earlier interviews, comment on <strong>the</strong>ir earlier<br />
responses, and consider <strong>the</strong>ir earlier opinions, attitudes, and beliefs in relation <strong>to</strong><br />
what <strong>the</strong>y now think and perceive. The first member check provided <strong>the</strong> seven<br />
individuals an opportunity not only <strong>to</strong> check <strong>the</strong> coded data, but also considered how<br />
<strong>the</strong>y would respond in <strong>the</strong> second interview.<br />
The second member check was concluded three months after <strong>the</strong> second<br />
interview. In Summer 2006, <strong>the</strong> researcher asked <strong>the</strong> seven individuals whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
coded results interpreted and concluded from <strong>the</strong> first interview and <strong>the</strong> second<br />
interview paralleled as <strong>the</strong>ir perceptions in Spring 2006, during <strong>the</strong> 10 weeks <strong>of</strong><br />
training. The feedback given <strong>by</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondents three months after <strong>the</strong> last interview<br />
56