56 Elmendorf and Luloff: Attitudes of Key Informants About Open Space Conservation For example, some solicitors worked for more than one mu- nicipality, and council of government and county planners worked with multiple municipalities. Following the idea of “theoretical saturation” (Averbach and Silverstein 2003), face-to-face interviews were con- ducted until the information that the informants were provid- ing became redundant. At this time, it could be reasonably concluded that a fairly comprehensive account of the issues and problems had been compiled (Bailey 1994; Luloff 1999; Elmendorf and Luloff 2001). All interviews were recorded and later transcribed by a professional secretary. The shortest interview was 25 minutes, the longest 145 minutes; the av- erage interview time was 30 minutes. Treatment of Data All transcripts were marked to ensure anonymity. Each tran- script was reviewed by the investigator and returned to a professional secretary for corrections. Some people provided very organized and concise answers, while others tended to be unorganized and rambling. Allowing people to talk for the amount of time they want and to answer questions in the manner and style they choose is a very important part of key informant interviews. Even when answers were rambling and unorganized, people were allowed to express themselves in the manner they saw fit, a characteristic of key informant interviews that complicates the coding and analysis process. Key informant interviews should not be dialogs that search or push for certain answers or conclusions. Rather, using an interview schedule, they should be an exercise in passive listening and interviewing. A major task in editing was to identify comments that were provided out of context and organize them in a logical manner. Qualitative analysis requires the analyst to create or adapt codes relevant to the data, rather than to apply a set of pre- established rules (Dey 1993). Creswell (1998, p. 150) de- scribes the process for open coding as “the process by which the researcher examines the text for salient categories of in- formation.” During initial editing, major codes were identi- fied for later use in organizing comments during a content analysis of the interviews. For example, among comments made about the definition of open space, the codes “no de- velopment and left in a natural state” were used; for com- ments made about the type of open space benefits, the codes “hunting, fishing, walking, biking, and hiking” were used; for comments about whether a shared or an intermunicipal open space system was important, the codes “absolutely, sure, yes,” and “no, nah” were used; for comments regarding the greatest difficulties in developing a shared or intermunicipal open space system, the codes “no cooperation of municipali- ties” and “autonomy of municipalities” were used. This cod- ing system was not unlike the “framework” approach to qualitative data analysis described by Ritchie and Spencer (1994). ©2006 International Society of Arboriculture An attempt to perform content analysis of the data was made using SPSS Textsmart computer-based content analysis software. The limitation of computer-based content analysis programs has been discussed by social researchers (e.g., Fort- mann 1999; Bengston 2002), and Creswell (1998) asserted that there were many different ways to analyze qualitative data. Before this particular software could be used, informa- tion gained in open-ended responses needed to be completely reviewed and edited by the investigator. This entailed both general editing and manually organizing information into logical fields or frameworks (Ritchie and Spencer 1994). In addition, Excluded Terms Files, Alias List Files, and Com- bination Word Categories (simple two- or three-word codes) had to be identified and programmed into the computer soft- ware. By the time this work had been completed, the tran- scripts had been heavily reviewed and the investigator had completed a content analysis. Further, the computer program had difficulties interpreting the exact meaning of simple words such as “yes,”“yep,”“sure,”“you bet,”“absolutely,” “no,”“nah,”“nope,”“I think so,” and “I don’t think so.” Moreover, the severe limitation of the software’s ability to recognize and interpret complex thoughts, opinions, and themes was a major problem. On the other hand, the software counted the repetition of certain words and simple categories or codes. This type of computer coding and content analysis is very helpful when making comparisons between groups of people or analyzing large volumes of text such as media stories (Kripperndorff 1980; Bengston 2002). However, be- cause this study did not require comparative analysis of groups, and because the software could not interpret complex thoughts, identify important quotations, or consider emo- tional responses—factors important in key informant inter- views—the software was not used. Instead, the investigator completed a written content analysis (e.g., Ritchie and Spen- cer 1994; Creswell 1998). During this phase, the investigator organized information under the codes described above and summarized the information using descriptive statistics. In- teresting and important interviewee quotations were also identified and recorded. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Open Space In 1961, the National Urban Coalition described open space as “an outdoor area in a metropolitan region which is open to freely chosen and spontaneous activity, movement, or visual exploration of a significant amount of people. The individual in this space has the chance to demonstrate mastery and with this profound satisfaction” (Cline et al. 1961, p. 11). The majority of informants expressed an understanding of open space consistent with this definition. Seventy percent recog- nized open space as areas left undeveloped; there was not a great deal of confusion surrounding the term. As one partici-
March 2006
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
