Qualitative Pilot Study

Introduction and Research Context
The successful management of online conflict begins with an understanding of why conflict occurs and what impact it has on the online learning environment. This would allow me to construct a profile of conflict as a process prior to undertaking my quantitative study. By first exploring learner and instructor perceptions of why conflict develops, how they responded to that conflict all along its development continuum, I will be better able to identify and define both the attitudinal and the behavioral conflict "markers". Without those conflict "markers", my research will have a “blind spot” that would pose a validity threat to applying my research results to the development of faculty online conflict management skill definitions.

Based on my own online teaching experiences, the experiences of my online instructor-colleagues, and on adult learner expectations as defined in adult learning theory, I believe that adults bring the seeds of conflict to the online environment. The combination of diverse learning and communication styles, backgrounds and experiences, coupled with specific needs and expectations about the learning process itself, contribute to online conflict. Some precedent for my belief in the greater complexity of managing conflict online versus on-ground can be found in recent studies of electronic group dynamics. For instance, comparisons of face-to-face and electronic meetings have shown that group members tend to be argumentative and outspoken in electronic discussions, often leading to increased group conflict (Sproull and Kiesler 1991). If a decision requires consensus, an electronic group has to work harder to achieve it than does a comparable face-to-face group. Group conflict may lead to personalization of perceived attacks, alienation of individual learners and, in the worst cases, withdrawal of individuals from the group and/or course.

There are several books and articles on how to avoid flaming (i.e., personal attacks) online. Shea (1994) offers nine rules of online communication intended to help online discussion participants avoid behaviors that could be perceived by others as flaming. However, the existing literature contains precious little about the process of conflict management. This is probably due to the relative recent use of the Internet for instructional purposes. It may also be a result of the fact that most colleges and universities are still using the Internet to enhance rather than replace traditional face-to-face classroom instruction. As such, course participants have ample opportunity to clarify and correct any misconceptions that may have been created in online discussions.

Research Questions
The specific research questions I would address are:
• How do adult learners and their instructors each view online conflict?
• Do adult learners and instructors describe the process of conflict in similar terms or in different terms, and why?
• How and why do each of these constituents (adult learners, instructors) react the way they do when online conflict occurs?

Given the (potentially) emotionally-charged nature of the subject, I would pilot this study to test out the question areas, the degree of subject enthusiasm for and comfort with the subject matter, and the language used to articulate perceptions.

Research Methods
To conduct this research, I would use the focus group method with 4 separate groups, with approximately 8 participants per group. Two of the groups would consist of adult learners who had taken an online course in the past 12 months, and two groups would consist instructors who had taught at least one online course in the past 12 months. I believe the focus group method to be more appropriate than the case study method or the interview method because it would pull together a variety of experiences per session, reducing costs and research time. Further, a face-to-face group environment offers the emotional security of verbal and non-verbal communication among participants and the group moderator, reducing stress among participants.

To reduce the likelihood of researcher bias, I would make use of my business alliances and recruit a professional focus group moderator working at a focus group facility in Fairfax, VA. Participants will be recruited via advertisements in the local Fairfax County newspapers. The number of local institutions offering online learning (University of Maryland, Virginia Tech, among others) ensures a good-sized population from which to draw. Further, using local participants would reduce the need to pay travel expenses.

The research would be conducted in accordance with the standards and ethics policies prevalent in consumer research as well as scholarly research. Participants need not name the institution where they took/taught their online course, unless they wish to do so. This means full disclosure in advance to all participants that the groups will be taped and observed. I would observe all the groups behind the facility's one-way mirror. I would develop the discussion guide in consultation with the moderator, and the moderator would provide the analysis and verbatim transcripts of the group sessions. The flow of the learner focus group discussion would be as follows:
• Group participant introductions (first name, city, occupation, type of online course(s) taken)
• When and why "return to school" was considered
• Feelings about taking courses as an adult - likes, dislikes, positives, negatives
• Why online vs on-ground
• Advance information about online education/expectations (and sources)
• Discussion of online course experiences
• Discussion of computer-mediated discussion experiences
• Incidences of conflict (what, how, why)
• Feelings about conflict situation(s)
• How (if) the conflict was resolved and outcomes
• Likelihood of taking another online course and reasons why - specific probing for impact of conflict experience
A similar discussion flow would be used for the instructor groups.

I would compare and contrast the moderator's interpretations with my own notes on the sessions. The comparisons could reveal conflict causes that I had not thought of before, or could affirm my own hypothesis of adult learner "baggage". The outcome of my comparative content analysis would be the list of conflict "markers" described in the previous section.

Validity Issues
Because this is a pilot study, I will not be using the results to generalize to a larger population. Nevertheless, one potential validity threat concerns the nature of the individuals who respond to the advertisement for participants. These individuals may be coming to the focus group with a "hidden agenda" that the moderator may not fully uncover. As a preventive measure, the group will begin with a "warm-up" discussion during which the participants will talk about their education/teaching history, both on-ground and online. Learners will also be asked their reasons for pursuing education as adults and why they opted for online learning. Similarly, instructors would be asked why they taught online. This discussion should bring any potential biases to the surface early on in the group session.

As stated earlier, a professional moderator will be used to reduce researcher bias. Triangulation using my notes and analyses, the analyses of the moderator based on the transcripted tapes will help validate the findings. In addition, I will compare the findings with what is already known in adult learning theory and discuss my interpretation of the results with the moderator. The results will serve as input to the design of the quantitative study.

References