Qualitative review methodology and applications

¶ … 10-year study conducted on the activities of National Science Foundation (NSF) Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation

(LSAMP) grant accorded to an aggregate of institutions from the State University of New York (SUNY). The objective of LSAMP is to recruit and retain under-represented minority students to train in the sciences

The study used a logic model that was constructed on resources, activities, and outcomes, considered strategies adopted by the LSAMP, and evaluated strengths and weakness of the LSAMP in the following seven areas: local organizational arrangements to administer the grant; undergraduate research; academic support; process skills needed in college; social support and community building; interest in graduate school; and success in graduate school. The study derived its conclusions from surveys of program administrators, an online survey designed to collect data about all aspects of the program, surveys of particular topics (such as transfer students), literature review of material related to the subject (particularly on courses with special benefit for minority students), site visits to relevant SUNY institutions, focus groups with graduate and undergraduate students, interviews with undergraduates, program coordinators and faculty, and observations of meetings.

On the whole, the students of the SUNY LSAMP program found the program to be helpful and useful to them in their college studies. The researcher concluded with recommendations for augmentation of this program and for application to similarly structured and intended programs.

Critical analysis of the article

Further research opportunities may include studying the qualifications and skills of teachers (which specific qualities of teachers, for instance, encouraged students to pursue the sciences): it might also investigate characteristics of the students attracted to this program; as well as learning / educational resources that have been most effective in instigating interest (for instance, technological vs. immediate hands-on, and the percentage of each).

The researcher was an independent analyst therefore, seemingly, detached from the study.

Crucial observations include the fact that the researcher mentions the interviews and outcomes of the interviews, yet it would be valuable to know how the interviews were conducted. Various confounding elements can creep into the interviews not least the person of the interviewer (that he should, in this case, be matched to the culture of the students, or, at least, understand their culture) and speak in a manner related to their age, level of understanding, and cultural perspectives (as related to the students) so that interviewees relate to him and respond honestly, rather than be intimidated by possible interviewer characteristics.

Specific interview questions may also be slanted in an ambiguous, totally, or partially, non-comprehensible manner. Furthermore, interviewees may respond according to presumed expectations, whilst interfering elements such as peer or, perceived organizational, pressure (to respond in a certain maner), fatigue, aspects of history and maturation may also distort response.