A Researcher with Authentic Heart and Scholarly Skills

Being a Qualitative Researcher

This course was a great beginning step for me to become a qualitative research scholar.  I, as an instrument of a qualitative research, comprehended that there was nothing more important than relationships between those observed and the researcher because all data came out of interactive experiences verified by questions, and responses relating to the experience (observation-questioning technique).  For example, a purpose of my participant observations and individual interviews is to understanding people and people’ issues in educational context.  Thus, I recognized that being sensitive and respectful of people, people’ time, and people’ place in which I engaged was vital factor when I conduct a qualitative research. 

This course’ assignments (especially field research experiences) awakened my sense of needing to share responsibility for current educational issues for international students’ success and sharpen my calling to work together with them in order to make the world better through education, which is preparing Christian leaders for a hopeful future.  During my research, I could also reflect my past experiences as an international student.  These reflections enabled me to approach the international students with sincere responsibilities as an international educator. 

I improved my ability to analyze and critique qualitative research and also learned how to design a qualitative research plan.  Technically, multiple triangulation methods, including 1) time triangulation for diachronic reliability and synchronic reliability; 2) space triangulation; 3) theoretical triangulation; 4) investigator triangulation; and 5) methodological triangulation within methods triangulation and triangulation between methods, were an insightful method that helped me advance my working knowledge and skills to conduct a qualitative research of educational problems in natural settings.  

I, as a qualitative (or field) researcher, recognized that simplicity for do-ability, accessibility for frequent interaction, unobtrusiveness for nonreactive, and integrity for ethnical issues were essential elements to conduct participant observations and individual interviews.  For these field research, I also learned that three basic questions (what, why, and how) were important for dealing with description and interpretation for understanding the interviewees’ world.  For example, what question was suitable when I described behaviors of students and phenomena of their cultures.  Why question was appropriate to understand and analyze their world with rationale, and how question was useful to provide “a unique access to the lived world of the subjects, who in their own words describe their activities, experiences and opinions” (Kvale 2007, p. 9).  

Overall, I comprehended that a qualitative researcher should have a careful attention to utilize interrelationships (through using languages and behaviors within a special moment, context, and culture) to develop an explanatory framework and interpret transcripts (field notes).  Therefore, inductive and deductive approaches for participant observations and individual interviews should be considered when I was collecting, interpreting, and analyzing data.  In the future, I hope that I will be a researcher conducting a field studies with authentic heart and scholarly skills.  Consequently, this course helped me expand my educational perspectives and improve my scholarly abilities for conducting a qualitative research, so I am thankful for these opportunities to learn qualitative research methods through the field exercises.

Argument Memo of My Final Project

Korean International Students’ Success in American Higher Education

1.     We need to better understand how Korean international students who are studying at a theological seminary in the United States perceive their success as students.

      a. South Korean international students, who are the major ethnic group (over 40 %) of the international students at theological seminaries in the United States (ATS, 2013).

      b. American higher education need to adapt international program policies and practices because international students’ success in the United States is a crucial issue for building a healthy relationship between people and communities during global changes (Ryan, 2014).

      c. International student program will bring together differences that will benefit both the institution as well as the individuals.

2.     We know little about Korean international students’ success, who are studying at a theological seminary in the United States.

      a. International students are often grouped as one homogeneous group to compare their success with domestic students.  Among Asian, however, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean students have different cultures, languages, and ethnic backgrounds.

      b. Previous research of international students often focused on the international students’ success within the academic setting.

      c. There was a lack of research on international graduate students’ success because most research has been studied of undergraduate international students.

3.     For these reason, I proposed to study six exemplary Korean international students to understand the following:

      a. How do they define students’ success?

      b. How do they describe their experience with institutional services as related to their success?

      c. How do they describe how they contributed by themselves to their students’ success?

4.     The setting and Korean international students selected are appropriate for this study.

      a. My relationship with Korean international students is my personal strength to conduct the interviews. I, as a research instrument in a qualitative study, am culturally appropriate to approach the way of asking questions and gaining information. 

      b. The productive relationship with the selected participants (interviewees) is important factor to answer my research questions. 

      c. The Korean international students selected are appropriate and diverse (from Theology and Missiology School).  My selection decision takes account the feasibility of access and data collection with concerning validity and ethics of the research.

5.     The methods I plan to use:

      a. Participant observation: field notes, videotaping in class and small group discussions, taking pictures. 

      b. Korean student individual interviews: open ended questions based on the protocol, semi-structured, audio recording. 

      c. Sample (selections) is guided by theoretical sampling, rather than statistical representativeness.

6.     Analysis will generate answer to these questions.

      a. My analysis will “be ongoing and inductive to identify emergent themes, patters, and questions” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 151).

      b. I will analyze data by reading the interview transcripts, observational notes, and documents that are to be analyzed (Emersonetal., 1995).

      c. During actual process of transcribing interviews, notes, and memos through listening and reading them, I will use ‘open coding’ for categorizing analysis my data (Corbin & Strauss, 2007).   

7.     The findings will be validated by the following:

      a. Triangulating: how to design the use of specific approaches for collecting data with purposeful selecting from a diverse range of individuals, purposeful multiple-site settings, and particular methods that are relevant to my research questions and goals (Fielding & Fielding, 1986).

      b. Discussing findings and entire transcripts with the interviewees and colleagues.

      c. Comparing findings with existing theory.

      d. Checking bias in the selections, settings, and methods.

8.     The study poses no serious ethical problem.

      a. School and interviewees will be anonymous.

      b. Approval from IRB with consent form.

9.     Preliminary results support the practicability and value of the study.

A Critique of a Qualitative Journal Article (II)

Andrade, M. S. (2008). International student persistence at a faith-based institution. Christian Higher Education, 7(5), 434-451.

Andrade (2008) explored “the experiences of international students in their senior year at a faith-based institution to identify persistence factors” because the author argued that dominant persistent studies were inadequate to explain the behaviors of international students in America (p. 434).  For example, previous research missed some critical factors such as adjustment needs of international students to American pedagogical styles and cultures, social (relational) needs from their isolation and loneness, and academic needs to overcome difficulties with comprehension of lectures. 

In order to understand the persistence of international students, Andrade (2008) reviewed several previous studies regarding “perspectives of cultural integration and campus climate that were particularly relevant to international student persistence” (p. 436).  As institutional factors that related to educational persistence of international students, the precollege experiences or situations, academic aptitude, academic motivation, and sense of belonging in school were revised for the literature review in this study.  Especially, studies of religious (spiritual) involvement and family relationship effects were (both negatively and positively) were reviewed as international students’ (inner) self-development.  These previous literatures were well organized; however, studies of diversity, unequal social structure, and economic obstacles that were considered as significant factors of persistence were not included in this research (Tinto, 1993, 1997).

Andrade (2008) selected 17 international senior students related to Church or mission organizations (53% from Pacific Island and 47% from Asian countries) at a university in Hawaii.  The researcher used in-depth face-to-face interviews that began with “a grand tour question” (background, personal characteristics, and university itself) and specific questions (p. 438).  Interview procedures including recoding, transcribing for data analysis and identification of common themes were well described for the research design.  The central research question of the study was “how have students’ home and educational backgrounds, experiences at the university, and personal characteristics influenced their persistence?” (p. 438).  The research questions logically related to the purpose statement.

In the findings section of the research, data analysis was clearly presented with six major themes: “vision of the future, home and educational background, spirituality, validation, attitudes and abilities, and institutional engagement” (p. 439).  Each theme contains detailed observation results in the following subcategories: 1) ‘forming future visions that were influenced by personal experiences, parents, and religious missions were important for the value of education; 2) home and educational background played a role in students’ desires for further education; 3) spirituality permeated all aspects of the students’ lives; 4) validation from parents, family members, peers, professors, staff, and church leaders provided both external and internal supports; 5) learning attitudes and abilities were important to have positive mindset and self-motivation; and 6) institutional engagements such as courses, support services, programs, and extracurricular activities contributed on the spiritual life’ (pp. 440-447).

Andrade (2008) is fundamentally based on descriptive statements gathered through interviews and excludes the researcher’s assumptions or biases.  Only in the discussion section, the researcher includes subjectivity and personal thoughts to give a deeper understanding of the facts discovered through the interviews.  If the research used the previous studies (that he wrote in the literature review section in this study) at this finding and discussion section, it was useful to minimize bias of the facts and ensure the validity of his personal discoveries.  Another weakness was implication section of this research.  Of course, results of this study could not be generalized to all international students in Unites States because this research was of a small number of students in a particular school.  However, if the researcher provided some specific implications for how the institution welcomes, supports, and validates international students, it would be helpful educational leaders and administrators.  On the basis of the purpose statement and research questions, except these weaknesses, this article was generally well-organized with an appropriate literature review, sampling, and research method.   

Reflection on Park (2013)

When Diversity Drops: Race, Religion, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education / Julie J. Park (2013)

Park (2013) well conducted the qualitative research with her experiential knowledge, existing theory and research, and her pilot research and thought experiments in this book.  Park studied race and campus evangelicals, who are members of a Christian student organization known as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) at California University (CU), in order to understand: 1) “how underlying values, norms, and priorities shape a student community, which in turn can facilitate or hinder engagement with racial diversity;” 2) “how student subcultures are shaped by the structural diversity;” and 3) “how changing demographic conditions (that is, an institution’s loss of structural diversity) can affect a student subculture over time” (p. 8).

Park, as an expert of dealing with ethnographic methods, examined IVCF for almost two years.  She conducted her research in the natural setting including the formal and informal lives of the IVCF members and cultures.  During the first year, she attended several sites and events to do participant observation with permission from the CU IVCF.  Through the participant observation, She realized that she had more insights from informal interactions with students, so she supplemented participant observation with “individual in-depth interviews” with sixty IVCF associates, including thirty-four current students through snowball sampling.  Park used semi-structured interview (a list of possible topics and questions to ask the participant but is flexible enough to allow the interview in other directions (Merriam 1998)). 

After finishing collecting data, she began preliminary data analysis from three sources, “participant observation, in-depth interviews, and document collection” (Lincoln & Guba 1985), to strengthen “validity and trustworthiness” (p. 158).  As a semi-insider doing ethnography, she recognized herself as the instrument of research including observation, data collection, and interpreting data.  She became a professional stranger with both emic and ethic perspectives, and it helped her to be aware of the relationship between those observed and the researcher (herself) for data collection and analysis.  Interestingly she mentioned that her “identity, personality, and disposition undoubtedly shaped her fieldwork experience” with better and worse perspectives for the quality of the study or the trustworthiness of results (p. 161).  

Personally, “when a minority is the majority” chapter was insightful to me as an Asian when Park explained that Asian students became a new dominant group (instead of White) to set the norm of IVCF group culture and their cultural traits as a majority group was unintentionally exclusive to other students of color.  So, I understand why the author emphasized the difficulty of racial/ethnic reconciliation in campus.  Among Asian students, Park specifically focused on the religious behaviors of Korean American students.  For example, she described that despite religious convictions about the importance of diversity, Korean American students experienced tensions to decide between joining in a racially diverse campus fellowship versus their (ethnically) homogeneous group.  I agree with the author’s idea; however this tension should not be interpreted with negative meanings or values for the Korean American students.  In contrast, I think that this tension should be positively discussed as the process of how Korean American students make sense of cross-racial interaction and expand their perspective to the campus climate for diversity. 

Lastly, to overcome “inadvertently discouraged racial diversity, cross-racial interaction, and interracial friendship” among students’ groups (p. 27), as Park highlighted, “intentionality and displacement” to listen to each other’s stories can be a “critical to constructing an organizational culture that attracts and sustains diversity” in campus (p. 134 & 147).  Through this kind of practice, students may have positive (better understanding, healing, and forgiveness) or negative (misunderstanding, tokenization, and deep hurt) experiences.  I am sure that these practices for racial reconciliation and multiethnicity should be a core priority of student subcultures that exist between macrolevel structural diversity and micro level (personal) cross-racial interaction.  Thus, Park underlined that “intentionality in crossing racial lines” and priority in multiethnic organizational cultures are important to “sustain racially diverse communities that foster engagement with diverse students” (p. 3 & p. 108).  It is imperative that universities have articulates that a racially diverse student body is linked to important educational and civic goals for students both during college and as citizens in a diverse democracy.