Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
each moment (see Table 1). As presented above, this quantification promoted a
deeper understanding of the participants' experience. Building on the quantitative
patterns that seemed to emerge and informed by the qualitative analyses from these
first cases, on the emerging coding scheme and our theoretical framework, we
distanced ourselves from the data [11] and developed six work propositions regarding
the impact of the program's activities (content and structure) and their sequence (see
Table 2). The first proposition is specifically associated with the pattern we identified
based on the meaning of dissatisfaction at m4.
Table 2.
Propositions (P) that emerged from the process of thinking about themes in the data
P1
After the first experiential activity (interview) most participants show defensive self-
appraisals
P2
The debriefing impacts the participants' self-defense system: activation of exploratory
system and deactivation of self-defense system (fear system)
P3
Having access to theory after experience enables: gaining an empirical context to the
theoretical concepts; a theoretical significance to the experiential situation; and
developing a conceptual map for future practice.
P4
The use of video enables validating perceptions kept from experience (interviews)
P5
The sequence and repetition of activities and rotation of roles enables skill improvement
P6
The large and the small group contribute to the creation of a safe haven to development
Keeping these work propositions in mind, we reproached the data looking further
in depth and considering two themes simultaneously (i.e., satisfactions and
dissatisfactions) and the activities and moments in the program. At this point we were
able to use one of the software's basics features - retrieving information, extracting
the content of specific categories and accessing data in each moment of the program,
given that extracting content enables analyzing data without the noise of the text [8].
Considering specifically the data at satisfaction and dissatisfaction and immersing
ourselves in these six participants' data we were able to go beyond indexing,
exploring data and looking if it reflected our work propositions. Regarding
P1
the
analysis of data at dissatisfaction at m1 enabled us to differentiate participants based
on their defensive attitude regarding the first interview (m1). We could see
participants with a defensive, self-justifying speech («
the interviewer's role is very
limited, it depends on the information provided
(…) [in]
sufficient resources to fulfill
this role in the best way
») or a penalizing and self-punitive speech («
My performance
as interviewer went very wrong (…) I was not able to maintain a sequential and
logical interview
»). But we also found a participant with a non-defensive attitude,
contrary to our proposition. This attitude reflected the participant's orientation to
development (
«I believe that at this time, the nervousness
[in the interview]
is a
restraining force that keeps me from my goals and that I want to reduce, or even
eliminate
») [12]. This type of analysis took us further in understanding the way in
which the first interview was experienced, enabling us to deepen the analyses we had
already done. This didn't contradict our initial results but rather enriched our
Search WWH ::
Custom Search