Descriptive
This week was very informative for us as a class and as a group in particular. Having the opportunity to explore the Y2E2 building with Jiffy Vermylen as our tour guide we were able to learn numerous things about sustainability and setting a blueprint for similar projects to follow. In this case the project so to speak, was creating a building that would run off of significantly less energy and embody a passive use of energy and resources (water, heat, etc.) We learned that this building set a blueprint for the remainder of buildings in the Engineering quad, as well as shed new light on how we can conduct our project. We not only spent time learning about new ways to approach our project, but also received feedback from Outer Sunsent Merchant and Professional Association from the surveys we sent out. We are looking forward to receiving more replies from our other contacts and will be reaching out to two more contacts appointed to us by Dyanna. One of these contacts being Lisa E.J. Pereira who has been in touch with an 8th grade school teacher from Lawton Middle School. This teacher and her students are extremely concerned about pedestrian safety especially on 34th and Lincoln and are willing to hold a workshop with us to discuss firsthand accounts and ideas to improve the safety for pedestrians. This workshop will prove extremely useful in providing the much needed first hand accounts from the perspective of students that frequently access this area and what they feel is the area of most concern for pedestrian safety. Interpretive This week was a particularly formative one for us in the ream of scheduling and managing clear communication with community partners. The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition kindly took the initiative to schedule short face-to-face meetings with members, and time slots were enthusiastically filled within several hours! It was fantastic to see how our partnership was really coming to life, and so gratifying to see that so many members saw a vested, active interest in improving pedestrian and cyclist access to the park. With a project of this scale, though, small conflicts and misunderstandings often occur, and we had the opportunity to communicate with the tend to a small one and resolve it as soon as it came about. As there was a mixup with the date of the SF Bicycle Coalition Meetings in the newsletter sent to members, we had to quickly consult with Janice in order to inform the members of the coalition who had signed up for the meetings that the scheduled day was Friday, February 21st rather than Thursday, February 27th (a day during which we had final presentations to complete for other classes and football practice). With the newfound information from Monday’s tour, we can really approach our project with a passive use of energy and resources in mind. Presenting a completely environmentally friendly pathway in conducting our project will prove of great importance when trying to see that our plan actually is implemented. We also learned from the Y2E2 tour that with new construction, comes cooperation from the people that will be using it. When working to implement new ideas and plans into a community we must not only look at what we want to accomplish, but what will benefit the community the most as well and find a happy medium. The feedback from our surveys that we’ve received thus far has allowed us to begin gleaming the variety of sentiments from different parties concerning pedestrian and cyclist access to Golden Gate Park. Receiving feedback from the SF Bike Coalition, the La Playa/Great Highway Neighborhood Watch, the Outer Sunset Merchant & Professional Association, the Java Beach Cafe, and the 45th Avenue Neighbors, as well as the students at Lawton Middle School will truly enable us to have a holistic vision of the various improvements needed for the park along Lincoln Way. Applicative As the quarter draws to a close, we’re thrilled to gear up for a strong and successful finish to our project. Our next few weeks will be the most intense and the most instrumental in accomplishing the project deliverables we laid out at the beginning of the quarter. That being said, we must retain a high level of focus and dedication if we hope to yield successful results. Furthermore, this is the most important time to synthesize everything we have learned in the classroom and in the field. As we make our final designs, we are methodically referencing the many facets of sustainable cities and service learning we have covered so that our project aligns with the objectives for each. It is especially critical that we continue to apply the important principles we have learned because our recommended designs could directly impact the living environment of the residents of Lincoln Way. As noted throughout the quarter, we feel responsible to uphold our commitment to both the SF Bike Coalition as well as the other community stakeholders involved in this project. Thus, we have devised a detailed timeline which will guide our work until the end of the quarter. After our noted scheduling conflicts last week due to poor weather conditions, we have rescheduled our interceptor surveys for this Sunday, February 16. We will spend the majority of the day in the area of Golden Gate Park abutting Lincoln Way, where we will systematically target parkgoers to gague transit patterns into the park. This will then help to inform us about our larger research question of general park accessibility. We will ask the following specific questions, with the hope of sparking a broader conversation: -How often do you visit Golden Gate Park? -By what means of transportation do you access the park? -From which part of San Francisco are you from? -What entrances do you typically take into the park? We will then focus in on the Lincoln Way entrances, asking respondents about their familiarity with and opinions about our study corridor. We believe this will give us a solid information base upon which to base our analysis of parkgoers’ transit patterns. That being said, we are keeping a few caveats in mind during these interviews. We are visitng the park during peak hours of a holiday weekend and therefore there may be a higher level of irregular visitors and car visits than usual. This may skew our data a bit to not be representative of typical parkgoers, however, we believe that increasing our sample size by surveying the largest number of parkgoers possible will help mitigate these concerns. We will be making our third trip to the city this Friday, February 21, and will be spending the day with Janice. The afternoon will be devoted to in-person interviews with members of the SF Bike Coalition who have volunteered to participate in our research. While this obviously represents a self-selecting, active body of the Bike Coalition who may be more eager about biking and alternative transit than other members, we are excitied for this great opportunity for face-to-face communication. Additionally, we hope to organize a workshop with a middle school in the Sunset District to gather information from a relatively untapped constituent base, that of the youth in the Sunset District. Assuming that youth frequently use the park, we believe they will provide valuable insight that can shape our recommended designs. This suite of trips represent the core of our community outreach and will be crucial in shaping the outcome of our project. As such, we are preparing extensively for each interview by completing background reading on the organization and compiling individualized questions. To round out our community outreach, we are still collecting our online survey responses and are waiting to hear back from correspondants such as Ben Grant of SPUR and Nicole Schneider of Walk SF, and will meet with Youth Commissioner Perksy next Saturday, February 22 at the Transit Summit. In sticking with our timeline, we will gather, code, and analyze our data during Weeks 7 and 8. Once this is complete, we plan to have our first draft of design recommendations available by the end of Week 8 so they can be reviewed by Janice and Nicole Schneider as per her generous recommendation. Our final design recommendations will be complete by the end of Week 9, at which point we will also have made a map of the Lincoln Way corridor to present to Supervisor Tang’s office. This will put us in good standing to prepare our final presentation and final report for the last week of the quarter. We are excited to tackle the heart of our project in the upcoming weeks and look forward to pulling the many parts of our work thus far together into a coherent and hopefully inspiring final report. Update on Project Activities
This week was perhaps the most work-intensive of the quarter for the Friends of Caltrain group. Both Ma’ayan and Sam logged significant hours at the Stanford Geospatial Center working on the map renderings for our mode share and mode shift analyses. Following our check-in with Adina, the group reached out via email to Transportation Management Associations across the country that have successfully implemented TDM strategies. Ma’ayan and Sam hope to set up telephone interviews with the leaders of these associations to learn from their experience and develop a firsthand understanding of how TMAs go about achieving their goals. During Patricia’s office hours on Wednesday, Ma’ayan and Sam finalized a step-by-step methodology for analyzing census data in tandem with the project specifications. Remarkably, the entire process can be summarized in four steps. These steps will be applied to 1990, 2000, and 2008 data: 1. Before using any of ArcGIS’s GeoAnalysis tools, we must finalize our list of Caltrain stations and project that data and our Census Block Group data into a flat projection. Because we are working with a relatively small geographic region, a flat projection will make it easy to construct our “buffer zones” of ¼, ½, 1, and 2 miles around each train station. 2. Using the Buffer tool, we will create circles of the above radii around each Caltrain station. Ultimately, these will the be the regions for which our analyses will be conducted. *When constructing these buffers, we must decide whether or not to “double-count” the population that lay within the buffer zones of multiple Caltrain stations. Our decision on this matter will require Adina’s input and justification in our final paper. 3. Using the Intersect tool, we will use our buffer zones to pull data from the underlying block groups. Then, we will have to look at our data table for these intersections and perform calculations to approximate the commute-to-work mode share. Put simply, they will calculate a weighted percentage of each type of commuter, for each block group contained in the intersection. 4. With the Dissolve tool, we will finally combine the data fields that were calculated above into a single line of data for each intersection. This set of information will subsequently be analyzed to assess mode share shift between the three target years. For the U.S. Census and ACS data that we compiled last week, we have already completed all of steps 1 and 2 and part of step 3. We have intersected the buffers with the block groups, but still need to perform our calculations before moving onto step 4. During our meeting with Adina, we were asked to submit a comment on an EIR that is being finalized for a development project at the San Jose Diridon Caltrain station. On Thursday, Sam, using a half-mile buffer, completed the above steps for this station alone. She, Ma’ayan, and Adina hoped that the data would show a significant increase in Caltrain ridership for this region between 1990 and 2008. Unfortunately, minutes before the 5PM comment submission deadline, Sam came to the conclusion that the percentage of residents who commuted to work via public transportation for the half-mile region surrounding the Diridon station had actually shrunk by percentage points, from roughly 8.1% in 1990 to 7.8% in 2008. Because this result was not deemed valuable, no comment was submitted to the EIR. Finally, we made headway this week in our TDM compilation by finalizing a list of 12 TMAs nationwide and contacting them all via email in hopes of setting up telephone interviews. In these interviews, we hope to learn from the successes and shortcomings of professionals working in the field. In advance of these meetings, we are finalizing a list of interview questions. The TMAs that we have reached out to are: Arlington, Lloyd District, Boulder, Austin, Cambridge, Hacienda Business Park, Alliance (San Mateo), Contra Costa, TMASF, Mission Bay TMA, Emeryville, Moffet Park So far, we have heard back from Austin, Hacienda, and Moffet Park. What We Observed and Learned There is a lot to take away from the progress that was made this week. Firstly, Ma’ayan and Sam are finally learning the ropes of ArcGIS. Though the software is agonizingly finicky and has a steep learning curve, repeated trial-and-error and meetings with Patricia have finally paid off. We are now comfortable enough with the interface and mechanics of the program to work individually on the maps. Though Ma’ayan and Sam have not yet spoken in person after the results of Thursday’s Diridon study, both group partners are disappointed by the absence of a trend in mode shift for the station since 1990. Though one half-mile region does not speak for the entire Corridor, we might want to develop a plan-of-action in the event that our data does not exhibit significant trends over time. By this time next week, this issue will be resolved, one way or another. Finally, our email correspondence with municipal TMAs has been hot-and-cold. While a representative from the Hacienda returned Sam’s email with a phone call and expressed excitement over our research, an employee from Austin’s TMA replied saying that, while we can set up an interview time “if we wish,” we might have better luck researching TMAs in California. These differing responses could foreshadow differing degrees of engagement we will encounter from these TMAs when we conduct our interviews. Moving Forward Our work for next week is cut out for us: 1. Schedule and conduct telephone interviews with TMAs. For those who have not yet responded via email, we will conduct follow-up phone calls at some point during the week. 2. Complete the commuter analysis for residents along the Caltrain corridor. Ma’ayan and Sam have slated time on Tuesday afternoon to finish these three maps. 3. Collect data for employers along the corridor. Adina is putting us in contact with representatives from the MTC and SPUR who have conducted similar studies in the past. Hopefully, we will be able to tap into their data pool for our project. 4. Reach out to Jessica Zenk, the Senior Director for Transportation Policy in the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG). The SVLG is a community of the Bay Area’s largest employers, and we hope to speak to Jessica about some policies that companies are pursuing to encourage mode shift. Part 1: Update of Project Activities
This week, we took advantage of the extra time on Wednesday to return to the Fair Oaks Health Center and pilot our survey. Our biggest challenge of the week has been updating various drafts of the survey so that we capture all of the data that we want to review in order to assess consumer demand, while keeping the survey simple and easy to fill out. In addition, one challenge was translating the survey, while making sure the connotations of words that do not have direct translations (like farmers market) are correct. Before piloting the survey, I looked up online translations for “farmers market,” in addition to checking with multiple native Spanish speakers for how they would describe a “farmers market” in Spanish. I heard a lot of different responses (particularly because most replied with regional terms for outdoor markets, which do not necessarily just sell food or produce). We are still checking in with Priscilla to make sure we use the term she deems most appropriate, but in our pilot survey, we included the most commonly cited term from my Spanish speaking peers, and then explained the term with more context when we handed out the survey. Thus far, this has been effective at getting the message through, and we have updated a few minor aspects of the survey to make it clearer before we start our full roll-out of the survey. In addition to the Fair Oaks Health Center visit and survey pilot, other focus areas for this week have included meeting with Patricia to learn more about incorporating GIS Business Analyst into our research of the demographics of the area, and reaching out to another Stanford volunteer who will be working at the Fair Oaks Health Center this quarter and continuing where we leave off on the farmers market project after this quarter. It sounds like she is also very busy this quarter, but we are hoping to include her (as well as possibly a few other student interns Priscilla has referred to) with our work collecting surveys at the Fair Oaks Health Center. We are also continuing to work on scheduling focus groups with the Fair Oaks Health Center staff and patients, and sending flyers to Priscilla to publicize the focus groups. For the staff members who do not attend the focus group, we are including a link to an online version of our survey so they still have a chance to give us feedback. We have also been working on learning more about the regulations and permits required for the farmers market. Our particular challenge is that we are not sure that the farmers market will be approved because the Fair Oaks Health Center already has limited parking (shown below), and we may not be allowed to further limit the parking spaces by blocking off spaces for a parking lot. Our most important next step is to meet with Priscilla to discuss alternatives to this regulations challenge, and to further discuss plans for market management. We will also continue to coordinate focus groups, put to use what we learned about GIS this past week, and officially begin conducting the final version of our survey. Part 2: What You Observed and Learned The first time we visited the clinic, I remember being very impressed by the newness of the building, the quality of the equipment, and the excitement of the staff to be working in this new, integrated facility. After touring the Y2E2 building this past week in class, my visit to the Fair Oaks Health Center this week prompted me to reflect more on the building design in addition to the quality of equipment. One main idea I took away from the Y2E2 tour was the fact that the building was designed to encourage the faculty to cross paths, share ideas, and see sustainability as an important component of their day-to-day lives, and it seemed like the building design really has inspired faculty and students to reflect more on environmentalism and other main ideas and goals of the departments housed within Y2E2. The Fair Oaks Health Center has a different goal – promoting total wellness in families of all ages – but this also seems to be reflected in the building design. To begin with, the Fair Oaks Health Center is a combination of three former clinics. Whereas pediatric services and adults services used to occur in entirely different locations, now both are integrated into the same Fair Oaks Health Center building, which I think makes it easier to reflect on improving healthy living for one’s whole family rather than solely concentrating on improving the health of one member of the family who may be feeling ill. In addition, the waiting rooms for each floor are connected by a central lobby/ check-in area, instead of divided into isolated waiting rooms for each service, so it is easier to see the different services provided at the clinic (pediatric, adult, dental, mental health, optometry, pharmacy, WIC services), which makes the comprehensive approach of this clinic toward total wellness more apparent. Outside the door is a mural with “health” in multiple different languages (shown in part below), and above the front desk is another sign about total wellness in several languages. All of these components serve as reminders of the importance of healthy living, rather than just the importance of curing symptoms of individual diseases. After thinking about the role a building structure plays in the inner-workings of that building during our tour of Y2E2, I realized how well designed the Fair Oaks Health Center is to promoting total health. The only thing that I might have done differently in the Fair Oaks Health Center – after touring Y2E2 – would be to move the stairs into a more immediate and obvious location. I remember how the design of the staircase in Y2E2 made people in the building much more likely to take the stairs than the elevators. Right now in the Fair Oaks Health Center, there is a staircase, but it is a little harder to find (although there is a very small sign next to the door reminding us to take the stairs to improve total health). That being said, I understand that in a health center it is particularly important to have an elevator present for people with disabilities, the elderly, and families with kids in strollers. This week, in addition to touring the building, we also got a chance to pilot the survey, which has given us important feedback on how to update the survey before next week, and allowed us to observe and think about the logistical challenges we will face as we continue to pass out surveys. Our biggest logistical challenge is just the fact that it takes a long time to fill out the surveys. When we visited the health center, we approached individuals in the waiting areas (only one or two people at a time), and then sat with them as they filled it out so that we could answer any questions. This made it possible to clarify anything that was confusing about the survey, have a short a conversation and get some anecdotal data, and re-collect the surveys when they were complete, but it also made the process rather slow. We left campus (on our bikes) around 12:40 and got back around 3:20, but in the entire time that we were at the health center, we only collected twelve surveys. Now that we have had a chance to pilot the survey and see which parts have been unclear, we will be able to update the survey to make it easier to fill out, which might mean that we will not have to sit with each patient as they fill it out, but certainly the timing of conducting surveys at the health center is a logistical challenge we need to work out. One other important observation we made as we conducted surveys was the fact that when we approached individuals in the waiting room, we had no idea how long it would be until they were called in to their appointments. As a result, I had just explained the survey to three different people and asked if they would like to take it, when they got called into their appointments and consequently couldn’t fill out the survey. One woman had just begun her survey when she was called in and took it with her. We did not know how long her appointment would last so after completing surveys with the rest of the patients on that floor and still not seeing the woman return from her appointment, we ended up moving back down to the first floor. The woman who had taken her survey with her actually found us on the first floor on the way out and turned it in to us there, which was great, but I realized that we had not really told her where we would be and where she should turn in the survey when she got out of her appointment, so this is something we should be more clear about in the future. We have brainstormed the idea of having a collection box on each floor near the registration counters where we could ask people to leave surveys if they took the surveys with them as they went into appointments so that this process becomes clearer and flows more smoothly in the future. Overall, our survey pilot was useful not only for figuring out if our survey questions were clear, but also for observing existing logistical challenges, and giving us a chance to brainstorm solutions to these challenges before we return. In our most recent visit, Priscilla was absent from the health center, so we were not able to check in with her in person, but we are planning to update her on our logistical challenges and our proposed solutions and get her thoughts and ideas before we continue with the full roll-out of the surveys. Part 3: Critical Analysis This week was a particularly big step for us because it was our first week truly interacting with the patients at the Health Center. In our first visit to the Fair Oaks Health Center, we were focused on touring the facilities and talking to Priscilla about our updates and ideas, and her plans and thoughts on the farmers market project. Priscilla did introduce us to a number of the staff members at that point, so we had a chance to talk with them briefly about the farmers market project, and we were pleased to hear that every staff member we talked to showed enthusiasm for the idea. However, coming away from that experience, we also recognize that the patients at the clinic, compared to the staff members, tend to be more representative of the demographics of the broader North Fair Oaks community. In addition, the ultimate goal of the project – expanding access to healthy foods – is implicitly targeted at improving the accessibility of a healthy lifestyle for the patients of the health center and the surrounding community members, more than at the staff members who already may have a higher level of education around total wellness. Because of this, we recognize that while staff support is important (particularly because our contact at Collective Roots described that it has been slightly challenging to operate the East Palo Alto Farmers Market at the Ravenswood Health Clinic because staff tend to be unsupportive), it will be most important to interact with the patients and North Fair Oaks community members to assess what this population is looking for in a farmers market, and what features within a farmers market would make them most likely to attend. As we mentioned in the last reflection, we have been slightly nervous about approaching patients because 70% of patients are monolingual Spanish speakers, which creates a substantial language barrier. I (Sophie) have taken Spanish classes in high school and at Stanford, and interacted with a variety of Spanish speakers in other programs that I work with, but I have never before approached someone who I do not know at all, and spoken with them in Spanish. After Carly’s “Brave Spaces” workshop, I also reflected on the fact that I was worried about making assumptions about which language an individual spoke, and causing a misunderstanding based on any assumptions. I am very glad that we had the opportunity to think about our assumptions in this workshop before beginning patient surveys, because it better prepared me to ask (in Spanish, since more patients speak Spanish than English) which language an individual preferred, then continue the conversation from there. As I approached multiple different patients, I was pleased to see that patients were unfazed when I asked which language they wanted to speak in, were incredibly receptive to talking with me, and were willing to fill in the survey. I felt extremely grateful that the patients were super patient about talking to me in Spanish, and were willing to give us their time to chat a bit about the idea and fill out the survey. One of the important ideas I took from Carly’s “Brave Spaces” workshop and our larger discussions of service (such as one of our early readings on the Haas Principles of Ethical and Effective Service) is the importance of humility, of being genuine, and of working to build trust and learn together when you approach a community (particularly one that is different from your own). I felt very fortunate to have this opportunity to learn from each of the patients that I talked to, and I hope it was as apparent to them as it was to me that I was learning a ton from them, both in relation to ideas about farmers markets and in relation to speaking Spanish, as I tried to share my own understanding of the farmers market project so they could learn about it as well. I had some great conversations, including corrections to my Spanish that helped me speak more clearly with the next patients I talked to, and enjoyed the opportunity to get feedback on the survey and the farmers market project from the patients. Some patients were particularly enthusiastic, telling me what a great idea this would be, and checked the box on the survey indicating they wanted to be updated on the project in the future; I am excited about the fact that some of these initial relationships and learning will continue beyond the brief survey time at the health center. One assumption we had talked less about before this survey pilot was the assumption that our patients could read and write. We had talked a little with Priscilla initially about the fact that the community members have various levels of comfort with literacy, and we considered including pictures on our survey to make it easy to do even without being literate. As we developed the survey, we realized some questions were too abstract for pictures to describe without any words, and decided that the pictures made the surveys seem much too long. Instead, we have one picture at the top illustrating a farmers market, and the rest of the page is comprised of short check-box or fill-in-the-blank questions. However, when I got to the clinic, I was more focused on assumptions around language, and had not thought as much about our earlier conversations about levels of literacy. One woman I approached told me she was indeed interested in this farmers market project, but when I asked her to do the survey, she told me she couldn’t write or fill it out. Instead, we went though it step-by-step as I read aloud the questions and recorded her answers. This was incredibly easy to do, and also allowed me to get a little more anecdotal from this woman since she was already willing to talk to me about the idea, instead of just marking things down on a piece of paper. I was very excited by this woman’s enthusiasm for the project, and willingness to fill out the survey together. Most importantly, this experience reminded me that I should not make the assumption that individuals can read, and should always make it an option to go through the survey verbally. Overall, we came away from the health center excited about the information we had collected within the surveys, and ready to meet with Priscilla to work out the logistical challenges and prepare to streamline the survey process and make it as easy as possible for each patient and staff member to give us their input and make their voice heard. Today, Jiffy Vermylen of the Office of Sustainability gave us a tour of Y2E2. We learned about the overall design of the building, emphasizing collaboration, natural light, open space, and data collection of energy use. She also explained several features to us, like etched PV glazings on the windows that generate electricity while minimizing glare and heat transfer into the building.
Last week the group met with Erin and Julia in a coffee shop in San Francisco. Melanie, from KALW, joined as well in order to teach us techniques on how to use a microphone properly and how to get the best results when audio recording. She gave us a convenient cheat sheet we intend on using in future interviews. Once we became familiar with different audio recording techniques, we were able to talk with Erin and Julia about the people we had selected to interview for the mapping project. We selected 14 different people that we felt provided a wide range of demographics and were a well-rounded representation of those affected by no-fault eviction. We presented the potential interviewees and received feedback from Erin and Julia as to the effectiveness and feasibility of those choices. We then composed both email and telephone conversation templates to use when asking evictees if they would be interested in being interviewed, which we submitted to Erin for her feedback, which we received.
We are still in the process of reaching out to potential interviewees, but already have two interviews scheduled for this coming Wednesday, the 12th. As for the rest of the interviews, we hope to be able to schedule the rest of them on two separate Saturdays, so that we can take turns heading up to San Francisco in pairs. Our plan is to make contact with every interviewee by Monday, February 10th so that we will have time to arrange an interview with each of them on either February 15th or 22rd. We all agreed that conducting the interviews in pairs would be a better option than all three of us attending all of them, as that could be intimidating and detrimental to the comfort of the interviewee. Jordan or Caroline will alternate driving to the city so that we will be able to easily navigate San Francisco and get to each interview site in a timely fashion. We also hope to conduct the interviews in the homes of the interviewees, but if that is not a possibility we will be looking for a quiet space we can use with good acoustics, one possibility being a room in the public library, which Erin tells us is free to rent. We are working on securing proper recording equipment and checking with Melanie form KALW to make sure it is what we need to get proper sound quality. In the meantime, Jordan will be working on creating a template in ArcGIS online, so that once we acquire our audio and visual components, we will be able to complete the Story Map in a timely manner. He has continued to explore different templates, and has found one that is geared towards audio recordings. This week in class, during Carly's workshop on making assumptions, our group did some important thinking about the role of preconceptions in the work we will be doing. We thought extensively about the preconceptions interviewees may have of us as Stanford students, including assumptions about our socioeconomic status, intelligence, capabilities, and character. We want to be able to connect with interviewees beyond the facades of our outward identities, and hope that by acting with authenticity and humility, we will be able to connect easily with interviewees, person to person. We additionally considered our unique position of having a fair amount of fairly personal information about our interviewees before even meeting them from the surveys they filled out, and discussed the idea of not allowing our prior knowledge permeate the interviews, as it is important to allow interviewees to have control over what information enters the conversation. If they want to offer us that information, then of course we will be receptive to it, but we want to be clear that only explicitly, directly offered information will be included in the map we create. |
Archives
November 2020
Categories
All
|