Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 3 - 35

The Questions We Ask

analysis helps researchers focus on specific
data and is a systematic, yet flexible process
(Flick, 2014). Qualitative content analysis
also considers the researcher's perspective,
including professional credentials and personal meanings derived from the data (Gall
et al., 2003).

Prior to coding the questions, the researchers used their collective residence life
experience to develop an anticipated code
book to use as a guide. The use of a code
book and letting it evolve helps ensure consistency when using multiple coders (Zhang
& Wildemuth, 2009). The process of developing the code book started with a brainstorming session that included researchers'
knowledge of their institutions' interview
questions: personal experiences in the RA
role; research gathered on the role of the RA;
years of experience supervising RAs; and expectations of the job.

Once the code book was completed, each
of the 12 institutions' questions were added
to a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet listed each
question in its own row. Several institutions
listed multiple questions together under
one thematic area without specific direction
to ask either one question or all questions;
therefore, each question was considered
individually. A column was added for each
researcher to assign a code from the code
book to each question. The researchers then
completed an independent coding exercise
consisting of reading each question and assigning it a code from the code book. During
the coding exercise, the researchers independently coded all questions, including any
open-ended statements typically found at the
beginning of the question set such as, " Tell us
about yourself and your interests. " On several occasions during the independent coding
exercise, the researchers assigned two codes

The Journal of College and University Student Housing

if they were unsure which code to use or if
the question was not as direct. An example
of a question producing an obvious code was,
" What are your experiences with diversity
and how would you utilize those experiences
to help you with being an RA? " This question
was easy to code as it fit cleanly into the specific code Diversity Awareness without much
debate for any other code. However, other
questions were more difficult to assign a single code. For example, " As an RA, you are required to reach out to students on your floor
or in your building who are different from
yourself. How would you go about reaching
out to these students and building relationships with them? " While this certainly could
be coded under Community Outreach, the primary point of the question was determined
to be about the interviewee's Diversity Awareness, which was addressed in the first part
of the question about the outreach to others
" different from yourself. " The complexity of
multiple-coded questions was later resolved
during the group coding process when a final, single code was agreed on and applied to
these interview questions.

During the first round of independent
coding, the researchers used a qualitative
research technique, constant comparison,
which includes the steps: check your work,
verify codes, and identify any missing codes
(Yin, 2015). The constant comparison process " leads to sorting and clustering of initial
codes... as well as constructions of new, more
elaborated codes by merging or combining
identical or similar initial codes " (Flick, 2014,
p. 158). Upon completing the first round of
independent coding, the researchers discussed areas where the code book failed to
completely describe the data then updated
the code book. This led to the researchers
completing a second round of independent
coding using the updated code book.

Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 3