Chapter 3
Methodology
Research Design
A tremendous amount of research has been conducted on student engagement, more
specifically student-faculty interaction, and its positive student outcomes. Yet, when it comes
to quantifying the amount of interaction between faculty and students, evidence shows that
very little occurs despite its positive influence on students. Furthermore, student faculty
interaction through validation (Rendon, 1994) or as an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar,
2010) is cited to especially benefit non-traditional students without the social capital,
resources, and background of traditional students. And with the community college population
changing from a more traditional to a more non-traditional population, practices that may have
worked for students 20 years ago may not be reasonable practices for a majority of students
attending college today/in today’s economy/in today’s climate. Additionally, because of the
accountability pressures being put on the community college system and the push to tie
student “success” to funding, the time is right to take a closer look at how educators and
practitioners can initiate and facilitate the process of interaction with students to help them
succeed.
In order to explore the assumptions, perceptions, determinants and process of the
initiation of interactions between students and faculty, a qualitative study utilizing grounded
theory methodology was conducted. While many studies have been conducted on the
Interaction itself, little is known about the initiation of the interaction. This study aimed to
discover the process of how interaction is initiated or not initiated, when it is initiated especially
by faculty, and with whom the interaction is initiated.
Research Questions
The following are the overarching research questions:
1. What theories, assumptions, and perceptions about the initiation of interaction
underlie how students and faculty initiate interaction with each other outside of
class?
2. How do faculty members initiate interaction with students? How often do they do
so?
3. Structurally, what shapes faculty’s initiation of interaction with students?
4. What determinants promote and deter the initiation of interaction?
The research questions were based on internal and external factors of the faculty member’s
initiation of interaction. Additional questions focused on the impact of the initiation of the
interaction on students as well as on the perceptions of interaction with both faculty and
students.
Data Collection
Focus groups and interviews were utilized for gathering data. A purposive sampling
strategy was used by seeking out volunteers and selecting focus groups from the most
informative students. Five focus groups were conducted with groups of three to six students.
Focus groups were selected from first year experience cohorts, as well as from student
organizations due to their assumed engagement with the campus. Some focus groups were
separated by ethnicity in order to provide a more comfortable environment for students to
speak freely without judgment. Follow up focus groups were also conducted after receiving
additional information from the faculty interviews for triangulation.
The study began with eight interviews faculty members who were nominated for their
excellence in teaching or whose names were suggested by the students as examples of
professors who initiate interaction outside of class. Instructors in learning communities as well
as in ESL departments were also invited to participate in interviews. Additional interviews were
conducted until data saturation was achieved.
Finally, observational data was also gathered from various labs and teaching centers.
Physical structure of the campus was taken into account as well as structure for support for
interaction outside of class. And finally, data from the 2011 CCSSE was also included for
triangulation purposes which provided quantitative measures of student faculty interaction
from the students’ perspectives. All data were carefully coded to maintain anonymity and
reliability.
Data Analysis Strategies
Data analysis included coding of the data and recoding. Interviews and focus groups
were recorded while observations were hand written during the interviews and focus groups.
The recordings were then professionally transcribed then coded by the researcher using Atlas
TI. Field notes were coded and recoded to ensure proper coding. Additional interviews and
focus groups were conducted until data saturation was achieved. Data was triangulated
through follow up interviews and observations of the results from the interviews.
Limitations
Because of the non-probability sampling method utilized in order to find the most
information rich people, generalization of the study is limited. Another limitation includes the
intimacy and familiarity the researcher has with the institution in the study. Third, given that
the researcher is multicultural and is a member of the non-traditional student population,
personal biases about how interaction needs to be initiated played a role in determining the
direction of the study.