Research Methods

Description of the Data

At the beginning of this project, I anticipated that it would be the basis of my dissertation research. For that reason, I captured as much information as possible in all of the design meetings that occurred, whether face-to-face, over the phone, or via electronic mail. From the dozens of meetings that occurred from September of 1996 to April of 1998, I gathered scores of pages of written notes, extended and expanded recollections of key meetings, copies of hundreds of electronic mail messages, and about a dozen hours of audio tape. In a typical design meeting, I took detailed notes and audio recorded the session, with everyone's permission. Afterwards I expanded and filled in the notes with additional details.

In addition, there were several meetings not directly relevant to the design of the web site, but which provided contextual insight. These included Seattle School Board meetings, and meetings in which the Seattle Public Schools administration presented information about their Weighted Student Formula to groups of parents and school staff. To include as much data as possible, I requested that other members of the design team attend meetings to which I could not go. Their meeting notes are included in my data. Beyond meeting notes, I have collected copies of all of the written materials distributed by the Seattle Schools during their introduction of the Weighted Student Formula and the Budget Builder, and materials about site-based budgeting disseminated by the Cross City Campaign.

To gain as broad a perspective on the development of the Budget Builder as possible, I also interviewed several of the key actors in the process:

From the Seattle Public Schools:

• Joseph Olchefske — Chief Operating Officer / Chief Financial Officer
• Geri Lim — Chief Financial Officer / Budget Office Supervisor
• Pat Sander — Elementary School Principal
• Jan McKeighen — Budget Analyst

From the Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform:

• Anne Hallett — Executive Director
• Dianna Lauber — Head of School-Based Budgeting Projects

I also have extensive notes from conversations between Andrew Gordon and me over the project period in lieu of interview notes.

The interviews followed the technique of focused interviewing described by Merton et al. A focused interview concentrates on a eliciting a person's reactions to an event, issue, or topic they have experienced. It is useful for gathering data from situations in which it is impossible or impractical to set up controlled experiments, as are most real world situations. This kind of interview can be useful for identifying stimuli, interpreting effects, explaining discrepancies, and uncovering processes at work. Focused interviews are different from both directed questioning such as polling or questionnaires and non-directed or free-form interviews, in that the questions concentrate on a specific subject, but the respondent has flexibility in answering (Merton et al. 1990 [1956]).

The subject of a focused interview is the shared experience of the interviewees, in this case, the design of the Budget Builder web site. The interviews typically proceed from an interview plan, but do not follow a strict set of pre-planned questions. The questions I asked fell into three main categories:

• The structure and organization of the project
  These questions asked for descriptions of such things as working relationships, and the responsibilities of various people.

• The Budget Builder
  These questions asked about the participants' goals and visions for the Budget Builder, stories of how the Budget Builder came to be, and problems with the development process.

• Community
  These questions asked for the participants' definitions of community, how they fit into the community, and their views about community participation in the Budget Builder's development.

The data in total provided a wealth of insight into the Budget Builder development process, much of which is captured in the following Project Description and Analysis.

Overview | Fieldwork | Objectivity vs. Subjectivity |
My Role as Participant Observer | Description of the Data

Contents | Introduction | Background | Methods | Description | Conclusion | References