Executive Summary
Community DescriptionThis section will describe the methods employed to gather information about the Robbins community. We will examine the secondary as well as primary data sources and how each was collected and analyzed. In addition, this section will also discuss the methodological limitations of the data collection process.
Sources:
In order to get a broad background of information about Robbins, secondary data was collected at the beginning of the project. Sources such as the 1990 US Census, the National Center for Health Statistics, the Moore County Health Department 1999 Community Diagnosis, historical documents from the town of Robbins, and the Moore County newspaper, The Pilot, were used to supply a great deal of secondary information. State and county web pages were used as well, and phone calls and informal interviews also provided background information.
Limitations:
Most of the information found was only available at the county level. As a result, the quantitative data found may not be representative of the town of Robbins. The only source that provided community-level information was the 1990 US Census. However, because the Census is ten years old, the information presented may not be completely descriptive of the community. Several major demographic changes in the past decade in Robbins are indicative of this limitation.
Procedure:
In order to begin qualitative data collection, a tool was needed: the interview guide (See Appendix B). This guide was developed by previous graduate students, and the current team tailored it to fit the Robbins community. After any changes were made to the interview guide, it was submitted to the University of North Carolina, School of Public Health Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval (See Appendix B ). This is a standard procedure for any research proposal using human subjects for any means. The proposal was approved and interviewing began.
There were two different interview guides submitted to the IRB: the service provider interview and the community member interview (See Appendix B). The service provider interview guide consisted of questions that inquired about the role the organization or agency played in the community. Some service providers interviewed were: the mayor, the chief of police, health care providers, school officials and religious leaders. The community member interview guide consisted of open-ended questions that asked community members to describe their experience living in Robbins. The strengths and challenges of the community were also discussed, as well as changes in the community and what the community members would like to see for the future of Robbins. Due to the nature of qualitative data collection and the structure of the open ended interview, it was not difficult to probe the interviewees for more information about certain areas of interest that required more elaboration.
Data Collection:
Interviewing took place between November 1999 and February 2000. Twenty interviews were conducted, ten service providers and ten community members. There was some crossover between service providers and community members in that most service providers also made their homes in Robbins. However, the team felt comfortable interviewing the service providers as such, because in their roles as agency or organizational employees, their perspective on community affairs is different than that of a community member's perspective on the same issue. There was no difference between the processes for interviewing service providers and community members.
The team started the interviewing process by first contacting service providers in Robbins and asking if they would be willing to be interviewed. At the end of the interview, each participant was asked if he/she knew of anyone in the community who would be important to interview and whether or not he/she would agree to being interviewed. Most of the contact information was given per referral. Only occasionally was it necessary to use the Moore County phone book to search for a phone number.
Interviews were conducted wherever it was most convenient for the participant. Most community member interviews were held in the participants' homes. Most service provider interviews were held in the place of business.
Each participant was provided with a fact sheet explaining the community diagnosis and interview process. In addition, the interviewer explained what a community diagnosis was and the purpose of the interview and project.
Two team members participated in each interview. One team member was the primary interviewer and asked the questions, while the other team member served as the note-taker. Each team member was able to both ask questions and take notes, but having designated roles helped facilitate the interview. All interviews were confidential and this issue was discussed with each participant. Each interview was tape-recorded, but in the interest of confidentiality, the participant had the option of not recording the interview, as well as stopping the tape-recorder if he/she did not want a certain part of the conversation recorded. In addition, all interview tapes will be destroyed at the end of the project so as to further protect the confidentiality of our participants.
It is necessary to note that due to the inclement weather in the end of January and the time restraints it imposed, the team felt that it was imperative to interview some community members over the phone. All the same procedures were followed for a face-to-face interview, except that a phone appointment was made instead of a personal appointment.
The interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes. At the end of the interview, participants were asked for any referral information they could give regarding possible contacts for future interviews. They were also told to contact the team if they needed any further information. Thank you cards were sent to all participants within three days after the interview took place.
Data Analysis:
After all the interviews were completed, the note-takers typed up their notes and listened to the tapes to fill in any missing information they overlooked at the interview. The team then read all of the interviews, looking for ideas that emerged frequently. The result of this review was the creation of a codebook, which is a list of codes, or abbreviations, for certain themes that came up numerous times throughout all the interviews. The interviews were then split up among the group and two team members assigned the same codes to relevant parts of the interviews. For example, two members both labeled anything mentioned in the interviews having to do with recreation as "R" for "recreation." Because two team members coded for the same issues, there was a greater probability that all material needed to be coded was covered, rather than if just one team member coded for each theme. After the interviews had been coded, two team members compiled all the data for each code onto one document using Microsoft Word. The document is split up into sections by each code, facilitating searching for material when needed.
Limitations:
It is important to examine the limitations of our qualitative data collection process. First, it is apparent that the interviews we conducted, although of good quality, may not be representative of the entire Robbins community. We were aware of the population explosion of those of Hispanic origin, but due to cultural and language barriers, we were only able to interview four Hispanic community members. Due to time restraints, we did not conduct a random selection of the community, and so we cannot be assured of representativeness. Secondly, as with any type of social research about delicate issues, it is possible that the answers we were given to certain interview questions were not as accurate as possible; some participants may have tried to give "socially desirable" answers and some may have not answered to the best of their knowledge due to the fear of being labeled in such a small town. Lastly, our sample size was smaller than we would have liked due to the weather and time constraints. Because the larger the sample size, the less chance for variability, this is a considerable limitation. These are all reasons why the qualitative information we obtained may not be as accurate as possible. However, we suggest that this document can serve as a starting point in gathering relevant data describing current issues prevalent in the Robbins community.
|
Executive Summary |
Back to TOC | Community Description |