Defining the Community
SociodemographicsData collection for the Warrenton AOCD began with secondary data collection. While the team reviewed a variety of secondary sources, most of the data found in these sources was for Warren County and not for Warrenton. In fact, the only data uncovered specifically for Warrenton was census data. In light of this, it is important to remember that data presented in this document generally reflect county statistics and trends.
In an effort to complete a comprehensive assessment of secondary data, the team consulted and utilized a variety of sources. Sources include the 1990 and 2000 United States Census, the NC Department of Commerce, as well as numerous internet searches (see Appendix A for a complete list of secondary data sources). These sources were selected because they provided the most current data on Warren County and Warrenton and covered a variety of key topic areas.
In terms of collection and analysis of secondary data, specific group members were responsible for collecting information on one or more of the following key topic areas: history, economy, demographics, geography, education, culture, and health. Once appropriate sources for each topic were reviewed, each group member summarized her topic so it could be compared to qualitative data findings.
A second component of secondary data collection involved the review and themeing of interviews conducted by Mary Marrow. As part of a state-mandated Warren County community diagnosis, Marrow conducted 25 key informant interviews with service providers in the Warren County area between July and August 2000 (see Appendix B for a copy of Marrow's interview guide). Marrow did not record these interviews, but rather took verbatim notes of each respondent's answers.
The themeing of Marrow's interviews involved the following steps:The biggest limitation to secondary data collection efforts is that there is very little Warrenton-specific data. As stated previously, the census is the only located source that contained data specific to Warrenton. Consequently, most of the secondary data reported in this document is data for Warren County. Therefore, it is difficult to separate Warren County issues from Warrenton issues.
The second limitation to the secondary data collection effort is that census information is out-dated. During secondary data collection in fall 2000, the 2000 census was in progress. Consequently, the 1990 census data specific to Warrenton and Warren County reported in this document has undoubtedly changed in the last ten years. In April 2000, the team reviewed 2000 Census data for the few areas about which it was available: population size and race.
Although these limitations exist, the secondary data sources integrated throughout the document provide an initial picture of Warrenton and Warren County that is complemented by primary data in the form of service provider interviews and community member focus groups.
Primary data collection involved interviews with Warren County service providers and focus groups with members of the Warrenton community. This process began with the development of interview and focus group guides. Before any primary data collection began, the team received approval from the UNC-SPH Committee for the Protection of the Rights of Human Subjects, the Internal Review Board (IRB) of the School of Public Health. See Appendix C for the IRB approval letter.
The initial draft of the service provider interview guide began with questions from previous community diagnosis interview guides. After an initial draft was created, each team member modified and added questions to the guide. Additionally, themes from the analysis of Marrow's interviews influenced the creation of the guide. For example, after themeing Marrow's interviews, a transportation question was added to the guide because transportation was an issue addressed in a number of these interviews.
After individual review, the team wrote the guide together, question-by-question, using individually created suggestions to steer the process. After the guide was complete, the team conducted a pretest of the interview guide with a Warren County health department employee. After the pretest of the guide, the team made changes based on feedback from the interviewee and the interviewers. Specifically, the guide was shortened from 90 minutes to 60 minutes because both the interviewee and the group felt a shorter interview would suit the service providers' busy schedules.
In addition to shortening the guide, the team reworded certain questions based on interviewee feedback. For example, the original race relations question asked, "What are the racial dynamics in Warrenton?" The interviewee in the pretest felt the tone of this question might lead to defensiveness in respondents. Therefore, the question was changed to be less confrontational. The new question asked, "How do people of different races or ethnicities interact in Warrenton?" After these changes, the service provider interview guide was complete (see Appendix D for service provider interview guide).
Overall, the team interviewed nine service providers between October 2000 and January 2001 (see Appendix E for summary of service provider participants). Seven of the nine providers were people originally interviewed by Marrow during July and August 2000. Although Marrow had already interviewed these providers, the team thought it important to explore certain provider's thoughts in more detail. The remaining provider interviews were conducted with people identified by Marrow as key provider informants, as well as people mentioned in the course of other provider interviews.
Development of the community member focus group guide took place after completion of most of the service provider interviews. The guide was created by team members during a single meeting. The team wanted the focus group guide to be less structured than the service provider guide because asking issue-specific question could bias participants' responses. Consequently, the focus group guide developed into a series of six open-ended questions designed to provide direction to the discussion. The focus group was also pretested on a group of five Warren County Health Department employees. Participants did not feel the guide needed to be changed, so no revisions were made (see Appendix F for community member focus group guide).
The team conducted a total of five focus groups between February and March 2001 (see Appendix G for summary of community member focus group participants). Initially the team utilized preceptor connections and service provider suggestions to generate focus group participants. However, after the first two focus groups, community members themselves were providing names of potential focus group participants.
For each service provider interview and community member focus group there was a note taker. An interviewer conducted the service provider interviews, and a moderator guided the discussion at community member focus groups. At the beginning of each interview/focus group, the interviewer/moderator read the informed consent form to the provider/participants and asked for permission to record the interview/focus group. The participants received a copy of the consent form with contact information for the AOCD team (see Appendix H for consent forms and fact sheets).
Analysis occurred within two weeks of each interview or focus group. In an effort to facilitate the analysis process, the team developed and followed specific methods during each analysis session. For provider interviews, an analysis form was created to reflect the topic areas covered in the interview guide, and was completed for each interview (see Appendix I for a copy of the analysis form). This helped ensure data from each interview was recorded under appropriate topic headings.
In contrast to the service provider interview guide, the community focus group guide was less structured. Therefore, the analysis team for each focus group took extensive notes from the recorded discussion on blank paper, not a preformed analysis sheet.
For each interview/focus group, the interviewer/moderator and note taker who conducted the actual interview/focus group were responsible for the analysis. Initially, the team adopted the following analysis methods:Although every effort was made to conduct a rigorous data collection effort, the methods presented above have limitations. First, this was the first time the members of the Warrenton AOCD team conducted qualitative data collection. Consequently, the service provider interview guide is in some ways a reflection of inexperience. The structured nature of the guide directed providers to answer very specific questions. While probes were used to gather additional information, the interview guide did not permit a less structured discussion that allowed the providers to identify the strengths and weaknesses of Warrenton on their own. Rather, the interview guide, to some degree, determined the strengths and weaknesses by the questions it asked. This weakness was addressed in the community member focus group guide. Consequently, this guide was shorter, asks broader questions, and was more effective at having the community members define the topics of discussion in each focus group.
Second, provider interviews and focus group discussions were not transcribed. Consequently, there is no verbatim, written record of this data. While team members attempted to record detailed notes by following the interview/focus group analysis protocol, our perceptions of what we did and did not hear inevitably color our interpretation of these data sets.
Third, the fact that the team conducted the analysis and themeing is a limitation of the methods. Most likely the themes the team generated from the interviews and focus groups are not the same themes providers and community members would have uncovered if they completed the same process. Again, our experiences in Warrenton and Warren County since September 2000 invariably influence the analysis, themeing, and conclusions drawn from the data.
Finally, the distinction between Warrenton and Warren County is fuzzy. Although this project began as a community diagnosis of Warrenton, it became evident during both primary and secondary data collection that Warrenton is inextricably linked to Warren County. Consequently, the information uncovered from service providers and community members reflects this connection between the two, making it difficult, at times, to distinguish perceptions of Warrenton from perceptions of Warren County. Despite these limitations, this document provides a preliminary analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Warrenton and Warren County.
|
Defining the Community |
Back to TOC | Sociodemographics |