How do we do qualitative interviews in the era of social distancing?

I love qualitative research. For me, the best part about qualitative research is talking with participants face-to-face. Sure, we can talk to people on the phone or by video chat software, but nothing conveys the immediacy and vitality of their lived experience like sitting across from them, looking into their eyes, watching their hands, noting their posture, as they thoughtfully answer our questions. In the era of COVID-19 and social distancing, when we can’t interview our participants face-to-face, what can we qualitative dissertators do to ensure we collect robust, rich, deep, thick data?

Accept the new normal

For those who had their hearts set on doing face-to-face in-person interviews, it’s time to grieve a little and get busy. No matter how much we might want to be together, we can’t right now. Your interview participants don’t want to breathe your air, even if you are willing to breathe theirs. You still want that doctorate, don’t you? Accept the new normal and move on.

Some of you might already have planned to conduct live interviews using a remote method—telephone or video chat. If that’s you, you can charge into this brave new world without breaking stride. However, if your dissertation proposal required you to have sit-downs with your participants, maybe over a cup of green tea in a university conference room, you will need to adjust your approach, because times have changed. Drastically and quickly.

Experiment with new ways to talk to participants

As an introvert, I’m perfectly happy working alone in my cave. However, even I need human contact once in a while. Connecting by telephone fulfills that need, although not perfectly. When I was collecting data for my dissertation research, some years back, I talked to ten people about their experiences with the phenomenon I wanted to explore. I conducted one follow-up interview by phone. I much preferred the in-person interview experience; plus, I think the data from the in-person interviews were deeper and richer than the data collected by phone. It’s easier to probe participants’ answers when we see them squirming or fidgeting. Subtle behaviors are missed when we can’t see faces and gestures.

In addition, I am a visual learner. That means I need to see faces when I’m communicating. In fact, I can’t hear as well if I can’t read lips and body language. In this new era of communicating during a pandemic, I’m learning to connect by video chat. It’s the next best thing to being there live.

I’ve tested several platforms, including Zoom, Google Hangouts, Google Duo, Wire, and Skype. (I’m not cool enough for an iPhone, so I haven’t used Facetime.) I’m sure you have more experience chatting by video than I do, so I’ll leave it to you to choose your preferred platform. So far, I prefer Google Hangouts and Wire. What is your preference?

Adapt to your participants’ preferences

When we are doing interviews, our preferences don’t really matter that much, do they? We need to adapt to the preferences of our participants. It’s hard enough to get people to talk with us for an extended interview. Getting them to download, install, and launch a platform they haven’t used before is a heavy lift, especially when we usually aren’t compensating them for their time.

Before you set up your interviews, test several different platforms yourself. Offer different options to your prospective participants. Help them set up and launch their preferred platform.

Make sure you can see and hear adequately. Identify audio and video recording capabilities. If you are new to collecting data by video chat, test your procedures with several people first. You may need to get some extra gear—for example, an external recording device, a better microphone, and a lot of disk storage space if you plan to record the video.

Identify the limitations of your data collection approach

Collecting data by telephone and video chat has inherent limitations. Obviously, your telephone participants must have access to a phone. Most people these days have phones. You can probably adapt your data collection plan without too much trouble.

For video chat, your prospective participants need Internet access and some sort of video chat platform. They don’t need a computer. Most video chat platforms function well on smartphones. Finding Wi-Fi could be challenging. In my area (Portland, Oregon), the Multnomah County Library continues to offer W-Fi, even though the libraries are temporarily closed. You, as the interviewer, should be working from a system with a large monitor, if you want to be able to see faces and body language.

Some groups are just plain difficult to reach, even in-person—for example, seniors, addicts, the homeless—reaching them now may be impossible in this new age of social distancing. Interviewing members of these groups will require some ingenuity and creative technology.

Pay attention to the data collection practices of the U.S. Census Bureau, when its researchers finally decide how to reach those hard-to-reach groups. Maybe you can adapt their approaches to collect the data you need.

Prepare to start over

It’s not your fault this pandemic happened now. It’s definitely inconvenient, to put it mildly, and we wish it hadn’t happened, but it did. Pretending it isn’t happening (my default) or blaming someone or something is not productive. Disasters happen. I thought it would be the earthquake that threw us for a loop, but nope, it was a virus.

We hope disasters don’t happen to us, but here it is. Your task is simple. As you are doing what you have to do to endure this lock-down, decide how much you are willing to compromise your concept and your data collection approach. I hope you don’t need to redo your entire concept. However, if you want that Ph.D., you may need to start over.

Imagine all the new research opportunities

One way I’m coping with my fear and grief is by imagining how I would study this experience. Assuming I survive, of course. You may find yourself needing to revise your dissertation approach, maybe rewriting your proposal entirely. I’m sorry if that is your challenge, but you can do it.

A friend of mine was working on her master’s in international business when the Berlin wall came down. Rather than revising her theses and adjusting her data collection approach, she quit her master’s program. I hope you don’t do that.

Plan for a future

The pandemic we face now is possibly the most disruptive force we will experience in our lifetimes. If we survive this, imagine all the facets of human behavior that need to be studied. For social scientists, every moment of this unfolding disaster is a dissertation waiting to be written. Please grieve, regroup, and get busy. The world needs your research now more than ever.

July 3, 2019

R.I.P., gainful employment rule

It’s a sad day for educators who want to hold for-profit colleges accountable for program quality, student debt repayment, and student employment outcomes.

This week, Betsy DeVos, U.S. Secretary of Education, officially repealed the Obama administration’s 2014 gainful employment rule. The rule has required providers of career and certificate programs (many operated by for-profit institutions) to prove their graduates could find gainful employment. If graduates’ employment rates fell below certain standards, the institutions risked losing access to federal student loan funding, the lifeblood of the for-profit sector. For the past two years, the Trump administration has refused to carry out the rule, even though it has the force of law (Kvaal & Duncan, 2019). Now the rule is repealed, effective immediately.

DeVos and others have offered several arguments for the repeal of the rule, including freedom of choice, lack of fairness, and higher education purposes and outcomes. I offer some thoughts based on responses of educators, economists, and my own experience as a former teacher at a for-profit career college and a graduate of a for-profit university.

Students should be “free to choose”

DeVos and others have claimed that students should be “free to choose” their higher education institutions (Kvaal & Duncan, 2019). DeVos has used this argument when discussing schoolchildren and school choice. “Our country needs students to be freed to pursue the education that will unlock their potential and unleash their creativity” (DeVos, Cruz, & Byrne, 2019, para. 21). However, the gainful employment rule applies to higher education institutions, specifically those that offer vocational programs.

Students who are contemplating enrolling in a college or university are presumably adults with autonomy to choose. Maybe they don’t receive or can’t find accurate guidance on differences between for-profit and nonprofit institutions, but the information is available. Nobody held a gun to my head when I enrolled in a for-profit university. I didn’t do my homework.

Thus, this argument is specious.

For-profits face an “unfair playing field”

DeVos and others have claimed the gainful employment rule “discriminates against the for-profit colleges that offer many career programs because it does not apply to all colleges” (Kvaal & Duncan, 2019, para. 3). Some have said the rule unfairly targets the for-profits, thereby creating an “uneven playing field” (Vedder, 2019, para. 4).

Critics have pointed out the absurdity of this argument. “It’s a bizarre complaint, like saying that it is unfair that there are different traffic laws for trucks than for cars. For-profit schools are structured differently, in ways that make them more hazardous” (Cao & Shireman, 2019, para. 2). Having taught at a for-profit college and earned an advanced degree at a for-profit university, I have firsthand knowledge that for-profit education is different from nonprofit education in some fundamental and disappointing ways. (See my previous contribution on the topic here.)

In place of the gainful employment rule, the Department of Education has created the “College Scorecard” to give students information on each program’s debt and earning prospects (Green, 2019). However, wading through reams of data on program outcomes is not easy. The gainful employment rule required all providers of career education (for-profit and nonprofit) to disclose program outcomes on their websites. Had that data been available to me in 2005, I might have made a different choice about applying to a for-profit university. Students need guidance. Unfortunately, nontraditional students often rely on the advice of someone they perceive as an expert, “frequently the school recruiter” (Cao & Shireman, 2019, para 40).

Some proponents of eliminating the gainful employment rule have claimed that nonprofits have their share of bad apples too (Vedder, 2019, para. 5). Further, the gainful employment rule did not account for other programs with poor employment rates and high debt, such as “some liberal arts degrees” (Green, 2019, para. 15).

However, comparing for-profits to nonprofits without drilling down to compare institutions at the program level is not helpful. In other words, comparing bad employment outcomes at “public universities” to bad employment outcomes at career colleges perpetuates misinformation.

It’s laughable to imagine comparing the my for-profit career college employer to the for-profit university I attended for my doctorate. It’s equally ridiculous to compare either one to the public universities I attended for my undergraduate degrees. We may have complaints about any institution, but when comparing institutions, we should try to compare apples to apples. It’s not about “fairness”; it’s about accuracy.

This argument is based on a faulty comparison.

There’s more to higher education than just employment

Some supporters of rescinding the gainful employment rule have claimed higher education is about more than getting job skills; good schools teach “virtue, civic responsibility, and other things” (Vedder, 2019, para. 3). The argument is that the gainful employment rule failed to account for “factors other than the quality of an education that could affect students’ earning potential” (Green, 2019, para. 15). Therefore, trying to regulate employment outcomes with the gainful employment rule misses the ostensible point and purpose of higher education, which is more than just students getting jobs and paying back their loans. Moreover, critics claim, the higher earnings of college graduates are not entirely attributable to college education; some students would have earned more without the college degree (Vedder, 2019, para. 2).

I agree, higher education is about more than just employment and loan payback outcomes. I also agree that some students will succeed and thrive no matter what type of institution they attend. However, again, comparing career and technical colleges that provide job skills (whether they are for-profits and nonprofits) with, say, research universities (whether they are for-profits and nonprofits) is a faulty basis for deciding for-profit institutions don’t require scrutiny.

The evidence seems clear. Of all the colleges that have closed since 2013, 95.5% of them were for-profit institutions (Newton, 2018, para. 9). Further, the majority of students who defaulted on their student loans three to five years after graduation went to for-profit colleges (Newton, 2018, para. 9).

In fact, students entering associates degree programs derived large, statistically significant benefits from obtaining certificates or degrees from public and nonprofit institutions but did not gain such benefits from for-profit institutions (Lang & Weinstein, 2012).

The federal government should have no role

DeVos and others have claimed the federal government should not be regulating universities at all (Vedder, 2019). The job of regulating higher education should be left to the states. However, the federal government funds the for-profit sector in the form of student loans, and these loans come from taxpayers. The purpose of the gainful employment rule was to hold accountable the institutions that receive 90 percent of their funding from taxpayer dollars. It’s good governance to ensure taxpayer funds are spent wisely and that bad actors are invited to improve their programs.

Just because the current administration has decided to rescind the gainful employment rule does not absolve schools of their legal obligation to provide students a worthwhile education that leads to gainful employment (Scott, 2019). However, without this rule, for-profit colleges with questionable program quality are free to charge high tuition for “worthless credentials that leave students with insurmountable debt” (Scott, 2019, para. 3).

By repealing the rule, the U.S. Department of Education can no longer use its most potent accountability measure—the loss of federal aid (Green, 2019). The collapses of ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges left thousands of students unable to pay back their loans, leaving taxpayers on the hook (NPR, 2018).

One part of the gainful employment rule already been implemented has identified hundreds of failing programs, many of which closed after they failed to meet the new standards (Green, 2019). In the Education Department’s first assessment of debt-to-earnings ratios for college graduates, “about 98 percent of programs that failed to meet standards for earning power were for-profits” (Green, 2019, para. 15).

To say the federal government should have no role seems lacking in basic stewardship.

The gainful employment rule was intended to put for-profits out of business

Finally, some have claimed the aim of the gainful employment rule was to put the for-profits out of business because of a misguided belief that “people should not profit off of learning” (Vedder, 2019, para. 4). Whether you believe education management companies are capable of providing academic quality—or not—this claim is quickly debunked with a quick review of the gainful employment rule itself. The purpose of the rule was not to put for-profit institutions out of business; it was to protect students from predatory recruiting practices, poor employment outcomes, and loss of taxpayer dollars.

Critics of the rule have suggested that all higher education institutions be held accountable for their academic and employment outcomes. In fact, the gainful employment rule was aimed at institutions with the worst outcomes: colleges that offered vocational programs. The rule applied to both for-profit and nonprofit providers.

I would call this argument once of those red herrings that we resort to occasionally in discussions about things we find uncomfortable.

Closing thought

If we could be sure that academic and employment outcomes were similar across all vocational programs, then we would have the luxury of comparing institutions by results instead of profit-making status. However, as long as the worst outcomes can be attributed to the for-profits, rules are needed to protect students and taxpayers. Unfortunately, that rule was just repealed, and with it all the protections it offered. R.I.P., gainful employment rule.

=======================

Sources

Cao, Y., & Shireman, R. (2019, July 1). Betsy DeVos’s shameful repeal of the gainful employment rule. The Century Foundation. Retrieved from https://tcf.org/content/commentary/betsy-devoss-shameful-repeal-gainful-employment-rule/?agreed=1

DeVos, B., Cruz, T., & Byrne, B. (2019, February 28). America’s students deserve freedom to choose their education options: DeVos, Cruz, Byrne (Opinion piece). USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/28/trump-school-choice-students-education-options-scholarships-tax-credits-column/3002868002/

Green, E. (2019, June 28). DeVos repeals Obama-era rule cracking down on for-profit colleges. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/betsy-devos-for-profit-colleges.html

Lang, K., & Weinstein, R. (2012, June). Evaluating student outcomes at for-profit colleges (NBER Working Paper No. 18201). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w18201

Newton, D. (2018, December 9). 20,000 more reasons to never go to a for-profit school. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2018/12/09/20000-more-reasons-to-never-go-to-a-for-profit-school/#390daff230e5

NPR. (2018, December 14). Defeated in court, Education Dept. to cancel $150 million of student loan debt. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/12/14/676755770/the-education-department-is-canceling-150-million-of-student-loan-debt

Scott, B. (2019, July 2). Scott statement on final gainful employment rule (Press release). Retrieved from https://bobbyscott.house.gov/media-center/press-releases

Vedder, R. (2019, July 1). Betsy DeVos is right about gainful employment. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2019/07/01/betsy-devos-is-right-about-gainful-employment/#2420a6d27315

September 24, 2018

Should we finish everything we start?

When I was a teenager, I would start sewing a garment, make a total mess of it, realize the endeavor was hopeless, and consign the pile of abused fabric to the trash in disgust. What might I have learned, what might have I created from the debacle if I had kept working at it, seeking creative ways to turn my mistakes into something useful? Back in the 1970s, fashion trends being that they were, if nothing else, I could have made several pairs of hot pants.

I can think of some things that are obviously best abandoned as soon as possible. For example, consuming a big plate of peas—I don’t care that much for peas. (I recommend dropping them under the table for the cat—that worked when I was a kid), or walking two miles if my bladder starts to tingle at mile 1 (I never argue with my bladder). Life does not have to be a torturous slog unless I want it to be, not if I was lucky enough to be born in this place and time. Misery is optional.

Now that I’m old(er), I recognize that some battles aren’t worth fighting. For example, jobs that didn’t suit me, relationships that weren’t working… I don’t like to admit defeat, but I’ve learned sometimes it is best to call it a day. Twisting myself into a pretzel to maintain a job or relationship might give me a sense of grim accomplishment in the short term; however, in the long term, I will regret the time I spent trying to save something that wasn’t worth saving. In other words, fish or cut bait. Have you heard that expression? I’ve only been fishing once, and it was not a successful or gratifying experience, but I like the idea behind the metaphor. Either do it, that thing I am whining about, or give it up and move on.

Some big dreams are hard to abandon, even when pursuing them seems to drag me further into disappointment—for example, my elusive art “career.” When I was young and naïve, some friends I trusted told me painting was dead. Around that same time, my parents warned me I’d better learn how to type if I wanted to support myself. I believed them.

In contrast, some dreams I wish I had jettisoned when there was still time to take another path—I’m thinking of my pursuit of a doctorate. Where were my friends and family then? They encouraged and supported my dream. You can do it, they said, and I believed them. If I had spent the last forty years working on my art instead of bouncing from job to job, school to school, I wonder where I’d be now.

On the other hand, persisting in the face of obstacles can be character-building. Maybe I wish I hadn’t spent eight years and $50,000 on a doctorate, but the dogged determination I developed along the way serves me daily as I work to create my next adventure. What can we learn by not giving up too soon?

I wish we had a way to tell the future, so we could know if it was time to persist or time to pivot. If you have an Magic 8 ball that gives you more than “Future cloudy, try again later,” lucky you, and where can I get one?

Every day we get the choice: continue toward that dream or pivot toward a new one. As long as we are pursuing something that interests us, does it really matter what dream we attain? Does the destination matter? Maybe we are only fully alive when we are on the journey.

Do you have a dream waiting for your attention? Is it time to finish that doctorate? Or is it time to pivot to a new dream?

=====================================

Applying Theory

Dissertators often struggle to choose and apply a theoretical framework to their research projects. In this helpful guide, I offer suggestions from my own experience. In addition, I reveal how other dissertators have applied theory successfully and earned their doctorates.

Written in a friendly, nonscholarly manner, I demystify the challenges of applying academic theory to a research project. You will learn that theory is nothing to fear—in fact, we all use theory all the time! With the help of this powerful little book, you will learn to master theory and achieve your dream of earning your Ph.D.

Print version $15.99
Kindle version $7.99

Resubmit! 28 ½ Reasons Why You Can’t Get Your Dissertation Proposal Approved

This comprehensive book is the missing link for dissertators who have struggled to get their proposals approved. This indispensable book bulges with insights, suggestions, examples, diagrams, and practical tips, written especially for the online dissertator who may receive little support during the proposal process.

I present solutions to address twenty-eight potential reasons why you might be struggling to get your proposal approved. For example, you will learn how to write a clear problem statement, devise research questions and hypotheses, and align the elements of the proposal to facilitate speedy approval. I unlock the mysteries of Word and Excel to show you specifically how to use these tools for your proposals. Over 200 tables and figures show you exactly what to do. As a bonus, you will learn how to design a web-based survey and make a plan for fielding and analyzing the data. In this book, I cover it all to help you overcome obstacles and finish your dissertation.

Free templates and worksheets are available here.

Print version $29.99
Kindle version $9.99