METHODOLOGY

In order to assess the needs and strengths of Durham County, a community diagnosis (CD) team of six master's degree students used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Primary data was gathered through interviews with both service providers and community leaders. Community members were interviewed primarily in a focus group format. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with the intent of collecting information from a diverse array of Durham County residents (n=59) in a variety of settings, including religious and community centers, service agencies, and private homes. The interviews provided the team with an overview of the needs and strengths of Durham County.

Interviews were conducted in pairs, with one team member designated as interviewer and the other as note taker. Interviews were audio recorded and notes were typed from the tapes. All interviews were conducted in English and were conducted in accordance with approval from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health Institutional Review Board (IRB).

The team developed interview guides to use in individual interviews with service providers, community leaders, and community members. A focus group guide was also developed to use with community members. The guides were developed based on information provided from previous community diagnosis documents, secondary data sources, and initial contacts with the community. These guides covered a broad range of issues, such as education, housing, use of health services, and economics.

The CD team conducted interviews or focus groups with fifty-nine community members, leaders, and service providers of Durham County. Twelve of the providers were female and eleven were male. Fourteen of the service providers were African American, two were Hispanic, and seven were white. The team also interviewed eight community leaders (two female, six male; two African Americans, six Whites). Of the twenty-eight community members who participated in interviews or focus groups, nineteen were female and nine were males. Thirteen residents were African American, five were Hispanic, and ten were White. Twelve of the twenty-eight Durham residents considered themselves to live in rural Durham. Eight community members were elderly and six were single mothers.

Data from the interviews and focus groups were analyzed qualitatively. The team identified recurring topics that emerged from the primary and secondary data. Topics then became themes for the document. After reading all data codes were created for subtopics. The coded data was used by the CD team members in writing the different chapters of this document.

There were many limitations the CD team encountered during the primary data collection process. One major limitation was the large size of Durham County and the short amount of time for the diagnosis process. The team was only able to capture a very small viewpoint of the community. Due to the short time of the diagnosis process and the team's lack of familiarity with Durham County, the team received very little entrée into many important communities such as the gay and lesbian and the Hispanic communities. Thus, these important voices and viewpoints were not heard.

A second barrier was due to a similar project being conducted by a Durham County organization concurrent with the CD team's diagnosis. Many service providers who had been interviewed for the other project were not willing to be interviewed by the CD team, or if they were willing, gave very brief answers because they felt the interviews were repetitive. It is unclear exactly how such limitations might have affected the data collected. Finally, it is important to note that there were no fluent Spanish speakers on the CD team and no access to translators. All interviews and focus groups were therefore conducted in English and thus limited the voices that were heard.

The sources of secondary data used included the 1990 U.S. Census, the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics, Lincoln Community Health Center, the Durham County Health Department, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, local newspaper articles, and library and internet searches.

Several challenges were encountered in compiling secondary data on Durham County. First, the team acknowledges that many of the indicators may be outdated due to the reliance on U.S. Census data that was collected over ten years ago. When available, statistical estimates and more recent data provided by county resources were utilized in order to capture the most current countywide trends. Second, ongoing and rapid in-migration into Durham County coupled with outdated census data and the dichotomous racial classification procedures found in North Carolina state data (i.e."white" and "non-white") made it particularly difficult to provide an accurate representation of the racial and ethnic make-up of county residents. This was particularly true with regard to the emerging Hispanic community within Durham County, which was under-represented in the last U.S. Census and has since experienced rapid growth over the last few years (De la Puente, 1993). Finally, it is important to note that aggregated county-level data tends to hide trends on more local levels. Statistical trends in the smaller outlying communities of the county may have been overshadowed by the dominance of the city of Durham.

Executive Summary

Back to TOC

Geography and History