In addition to the two experts I found to review my data collection guide, I also received input and feedback from Dr. C and my residency 3 mentor, Dr. Muchnick. Most of my experts noted that while my questions were written in a conversational tone, I began them with Can you, Would you, and Could you? While this phrasing was meant to elicit more depth from the interviewee, each phrase presents a closed-ended question that can be answered with a yes or no.

Dr. Muchnick and one of my experts focused on the research question and the scope of my population. They noted that I was casting too wide a net for a generic qualitative inquiry. My initial population called for C-level executives at R1 colleges and universities. It was pointed out that this population of a complete slate of executives would be better suited for a case study at one campus where I interviewed each of these roles regarding their specific campus.

For my research, it was suggested that I focus on technology executives (CISO, CTO, CIO, or equivalent). And then interview for this level of role at multiple institutions. This would ground my dissertation in a very specific set of observations from the people who may not be at fault if there was a security incident related to shadow IT. Still, they and their department would be responsible for dealing with the incident.

Another piece of advice that I got from my qualitative expert was to order my questions in a way that leaves questions that overlap with other questions at the end, so that if I run out of time, I have some data related to those questions if I am not able to ask them. I was also advised about when asking a follow-up question, to focus the respondent to a single or best example to get at the point of the follow up question.

I was able to integrate these suggestions into my data collection guide, and gain approval from Dr. Muchnick to use the revised version for my test runs for this course and for my residency.

Comment on the post?