Otos made them feel. While the interviews were generative of themes

Otos made them feel. While the interviews were generative of themes and ideas around vital places at Bayview, the dynamic interchange of respondents in the focus group format allowed for deeper insights and an exploration of consensus among participants. Analytic Approach Following an abductive research approach (Timmermans Tavory, 2012), I came to the data with some social and behavioral place-based theoretical health frameworks in mind to aid in my analysis, but also remained open to ideas and themes that emerged from the data. I was particularly aware of the fact that this neighborhood seemed anomalous in that it appeared to have more health-related resources than other comparable subsidized-housing neighborhoods, so I cultivated the data to examine this anomaly through systematic methodological analysis. I used the constant comparative analysis technique (Charmaz, 2006; POR-8 chemical information Glaser Strauss, 1967) to explore the ways in which residents spoke about using and interpreting nearby neighborhood places. I began analysis from the first interview and as the study went on I constantly revisited the data, comparing newly-collected data with emerging themes, finding relationships between themes, and going back and forth between data collection and analysis. My research assistant and I separately coded transcripts within a week of collection, and cross-checked our codes with a group of between 4 and 6 qualitative researchers at the University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and ML240 manufacturer Translational Research (ICTR). I applied case study logic to the sampling procedures (Yin, 2009), where each case provided an increasingly accurate understanding of the questions at hand, and yielded a set of findings that informed the next case, proceeding until we had reached saturation. The protocol for this study was approved by the Social and Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin ?Madison (# SE-2011-0447). The theoretical and empirical meaning of vital places derives principally from the interview question that asked, “Can you identify some places in the community that are important to you?” Residents listed places and we discussed each in depth. Throughout the interviews, residents listed 45 unique places that were important to them, places like the public library, the nearby hospital, individual health clinics, the zoo, shopping malls, large discount grocery stores, and the veteran’s museum. The ethnic grocery store, the park across the street, and the neighborhood courtyards were validated by multiple residents as very important, nearby and frequently-used. I discuss these three locations as vital places because of the frequency with which they were mentioned, as well as the ways residents spoke about the importance of these places in their daily lives, the nearby location, and the potential relationships withAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptSoc Sci Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 April 07.WaltonPagesocial and behavioral mechanisms relating to health. The ethnic grocery emerged as important in 23 out of 27 interviews, while the park and courtyards were discussed as important in 18 and 15 interviews respectively. Details revealing the extent and depth of their importance to residents emerged in the ways residents spoke about the places and through my observations of their interactions with places as we walked around the neighborhood. I asked about how they used the places.Otos made them feel. While the interviews were generative of themes and ideas around vital places at Bayview, the dynamic interchange of respondents in the focus group format allowed for deeper insights and an exploration of consensus among participants. Analytic Approach Following an abductive research approach (Timmermans Tavory, 2012), I came to the data with some social and behavioral place-based theoretical health frameworks in mind to aid in my analysis, but also remained open to ideas and themes that emerged from the data. I was particularly aware of the fact that this neighborhood seemed anomalous in that it appeared to have more health-related resources than other comparable subsidized-housing neighborhoods, so I cultivated the data to examine this anomaly through systematic methodological analysis. I used the constant comparative analysis technique (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser Strauss, 1967) to explore the ways in which residents spoke about using and interpreting nearby neighborhood places. I began analysis from the first interview and as the study went on I constantly revisited the data, comparing newly-collected data with emerging themes, finding relationships between themes, and going back and forth between data collection and analysis. My research assistant and I separately coded transcripts within a week of collection, and cross-checked our codes with a group of between 4 and 6 qualitative researchers at the University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR). I applied case study logic to the sampling procedures (Yin, 2009), where each case provided an increasingly accurate understanding of the questions at hand, and yielded a set of findings that informed the next case, proceeding until we had reached saturation. The protocol for this study was approved by the Social and Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin ?Madison (# SE-2011-0447). The theoretical and empirical meaning of vital places derives principally from the interview question that asked, “Can you identify some places in the community that are important to you?” Residents listed places and we discussed each in depth. Throughout the interviews, residents listed 45 unique places that were important to them, places like the public library, the nearby hospital, individual health clinics, the zoo, shopping malls, large discount grocery stores, and the veteran’s museum. The ethnic grocery store, the park across the street, and the neighborhood courtyards were validated by multiple residents as very important, nearby and frequently-used. I discuss these three locations as vital places because of the frequency with which they were mentioned, as well as the ways residents spoke about the importance of these places in their daily lives, the nearby location, and the potential relationships withAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptSoc Sci Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 April 07.WaltonPagesocial and behavioral mechanisms relating to health. The ethnic grocery emerged as important in 23 out of 27 interviews, while the park and courtyards were discussed as important in 18 and 15 interviews respectively. Details revealing the extent and depth of their importance to residents emerged in the ways residents spoke about the places and through my observations of their interactions with places as we walked around the neighborhood. I asked about how they used the places.

Leave a Reply