Five years later: lessons and insights from a longitudinal, mixed-methods study

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Social Research Methodology Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1080/13645579.2023.2262376
Kacey Beddoes
{"title":"Five years later: lessons and insights from a longitudinal, mixed-methods study","authors":"Kacey Beddoes","doi":"10.1080/13645579.2023.2262376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTDespite their many benefits, longitudinal studies are much less common than one-time data collection or pre-post intervention designs. One reason for their scarcity is that longitudinal studies introduce requirements and challenges that non-longitudinal studies do not. One of the biggest challenges is participant attrition. In order to help researchers plan and conduct longitudinal studies and mitigate some of these challenges, this article presents methodological findings from five years of mixed-methods data collection with the same 16 participants. Findings consist of participants’ reasons for continued participation, which spanned a range of personal and professional reasons, and my reflections on methodological lessons I have learned over these years. Understanding why participants have continued to participate and lessons I have learned can support the successful design and completion of future longitudinal research, which in turn will advance understandings of social processes, changes over time, pathways, and emergences.KEYWORDS: Longitudinalmixed-methodsengineeringreflectiongender AcknowledgmentsI am very grateful to my participants for their continued contributions to the study. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant EEC #1929727. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the National Science Foundation [EEC #1929727].Notes on contributorsKacey BeddoesKacey Beddoes is a Project Director for the San Jose State University College of Engineering Dean’s Office. She holds a Ph.D. in Science and Technology Studies from Virginia Tech, along with graduate certificates in Engineering Education and Women’s Studies. Her current research focuses on gender, interdisciplinarity, and mental wellness in engineering and engineering education.","PeriodicalId":14272,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Social Research Methodology","volume":"169 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Social Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2023.2262376","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTDespite their many benefits, longitudinal studies are much less common than one-time data collection or pre-post intervention designs. One reason for their scarcity is that longitudinal studies introduce requirements and challenges that non-longitudinal studies do not. One of the biggest challenges is participant attrition. In order to help researchers plan and conduct longitudinal studies and mitigate some of these challenges, this article presents methodological findings from five years of mixed-methods data collection with the same 16 participants. Findings consist of participants’ reasons for continued participation, which spanned a range of personal and professional reasons, and my reflections on methodological lessons I have learned over these years. Understanding why participants have continued to participate and lessons I have learned can support the successful design and completion of future longitudinal research, which in turn will advance understandings of social processes, changes over time, pathways, and emergences.KEYWORDS: Longitudinalmixed-methodsengineeringreflectiongender AcknowledgmentsI am very grateful to my participants for their continued contributions to the study. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant EEC #1929727. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the National Science Foundation [EEC #1929727].Notes on contributorsKacey BeddoesKacey Beddoes is a Project Director for the San Jose State University College of Engineering Dean’s Office. She holds a Ph.D. in Science and Technology Studies from Virginia Tech, along with graduate certificates in Engineering Education and Women’s Studies. Her current research focuses on gender, interdisciplinarity, and mental wellness in engineering and engineering education.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
五年后:一项纵向、混合方法研究的经验教训和见解
尽管纵向研究有很多好处,但与一次性数据收集或干预前后设计相比,它们要少得多。它们缺乏的一个原因是纵向研究引入了非纵向研究没有的需求和挑战。最大的挑战之一是参与者的流失。为了帮助研究人员计划和开展纵向研究并减轻这些挑战,本文介绍了从相同的16名参与者中收集的5年混合方法数据的方法学发现。调查结果包括参与者继续参与的原因,包括一系列个人和职业原因,以及我对这些年来所学到的方法论课程的反思。理解参与者继续参与的原因以及我所学到的经验教训可以支持未来纵向研究的成功设计和完成,这反过来又会促进对社会过程、随时间变化、途径和突发事件的理解。关键词:纵向、混合方法、工程、反映、性别感谢我非常感谢我的参与者对这项研究的持续贡献。本材料基于美国国家科学基金会资助的EEC #1929727的工作。本材料中表达的任何观点、发现、结论或建议都是作者的观点,并不一定反映美国国家科学基金会的观点。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。本研究由美国国家科学基金会[EEC #1929727]资助。kacey Beddoes是圣何塞州立大学工程学院院长办公室的项目主管。她拥有弗吉尼亚理工大学科学与技术研究博士学位,以及工程教育和妇女研究的研究生证书。她目前的研究重点是工程和工程教育中的性别、跨学科和心理健康。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Social Research Methodology
International Journal of Social Research Methodology SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
52
期刊最新文献
Linking survey and Facebook data: mechanisms of consent and linkage Tate Liverpool’s Democracies: curatorial methodologies for exploring democracy An empirical evaluation of probing questions investigating question comprehensibility in web surveys A brief reply to David Byrne Effects of objective and perceived burden on response quality in web surveys
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1