Artifact 1: Knowledge Integration: Real World Application

While taking MDDE602, I simultaneously became involved in a research study in which I was a primary researcher along with two of my coworkers.  For this study, we had applied to and were subsequently approved for a research grant through the Canadian Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (CASFAA).  As the nature of our day-to-day roles involved providing financial assistance to students, we had a thorough understanding of the important role financial assistance plays in an individuals educational journey, however, we also recognized that not all students received - or even applied to - financial assistance programs.  This understanding in mind,  we decided to look at the barriers faced by students in terms of accessing financial assistance to fund their postsecondary education journey. 

The Study

The name of our study was Breaking Barriers and it consisted of two phases: the first phase consisted of quantitative data gathering and analysis regarding non-participation rates of Sheridan College students in applying for some form of financial assistance, whether that be government sponsored aid (e.g.: provincial loan and grant programming), institutional grants and/or bursaries, or other means; the second phase consisted of qualitative information gathering and analysis through focus groups with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of the factors, conditions, thought processes that deter students from seeking financial assistance.  

We began the first phase of our study in the Winter of 2018 at which time participation rates for the Canada-Ontario Integrated Student Loan program at Sheridan College were roughly around 80%, with student populations at other Ontario postsecondary institutions reflecting similar figures, according to an internal circulation distributed by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.  Given that the majority of Sheridan's student population had, indeed, applied for some form of financial assistance during their academic career with the college, it meant that most students would have had some sort of contact with the Financial Aid and Awards Office at some point in time.  The population of interest to our study, however, were those students who had not applied for any financial assistance and so we aimed to find out "why" through our research design.

When I reflect back on my experience with the CASFAA-Sponsored Breaking Barriers study, I not only feel extremely proud of the hard work and dedication that myself and my fellow researchers put into gathering, analyzing and presenting our findings to a team of financial aid professionals from across the country, but I also feel grateful for having had the opportunity to really develop my research and writing abilities throughout my MEd journey.  While virtually every class throughout the MEd program has required me to conduct literary research, MDDE602 in particular is the course in which I experienced the most growth in terms of having confidence in my ability to conduct practical, exploratory research that is reliable, verifiable and ethically sound.  

Grant Proposal Writing

To  obtain funding for our study, we completed a grant proposal and submitted it to the CASFAA organization.  To be duly considered for this funding, it was critical that our grant proposal was written in a well-organized manner which helped us to appropriately articulate our topic of study (4.2) and illuminate the overarching implications resulting from the knowledge gained through our study (1.9).  To do this  effectively, we spent a great deal of time developing and refining our research question, conducted a literature review, carefully outlined our research design and then finally, our proposed budget (5.2, 5.3).

Research Ethics Board (REB)

Once CASFAA approved our study for funding, we began the process of putting together our application to the Sheridan College Research Ethics Board (REB)  and subsequently engaged in the Tri-County Policy Statement (TCPS2): Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.  It was an extremely thorough certification process which prompted us to think critically about the intent of our research, potential risks that could be posed to study participants, and the ways in which those risks could be mitigated (5.13). 

In terms of the actual REB process, the process seemed pretty straightforward however it ended up being somewhat tedious.  Initially and even despite having completed the TCPS2 certification, we decided that there weren't any real risks associated with our research design.  After all, the first phase of our study involved the use of an anonymous survey and the second phase would involve a series of small focus groups for those who indicate [on the survey] that they are interested in engaging in group discussion.  However, our initial application to the REB committee was denied with the rationale that our study did, in fact, have the potential to cause harm to our students.  One example of how our study (as it was presented in our initial REB application) could cause harm to our students was in regards to our survey questionnaire - we had to ensure that we prefaced our survey with a disclaimer to all participants that a) their participation was absolutely voluntary, b) how the information would be used and stored, and c) that they had the right to terminate/exit the survey questionnaire at any point for any reason with no repercussions.  Another example was in terms of record information management - we thought it was sufficient to state in our REB application something to the effect of "all records will be kept in a locked box", however we were told to include additional information such as where the locked box would be stored and who would have access to it.  That in mind, we revised our statement on record information management so that it read as "..all records will be kept in a locked box, in the locked office of the project manager, and only the primary researchers will have a key to the locked box".  Again, this was eye opening as it forced us to think critically about our processes, describe every minute detail of those processes, and of course, adhere to them throughout the duration of the study (3.3., 5.13).  In the end, we had to submit our application to REB two separate times, taking care each time to make the recommended revisions to reduce the risk of research ethics violations and to protect our study participants.  The REB process was a growth experience in and of itself because it gave rise to a cognitive shift for us as a team of primary researchers. By thinking constructively and holistically about our research processes and attempting to understand the study topic through the lens of a student, it not only helped us formulate better research questions but it also fueled deeper understanding which paved the way for producing evidence-based recommendations (1.5., 5.7). 

Cross-Departmental Collaboration

To get our study off the ground, we had to communicate and coordinate with other departments such as Projects and also Communications.  The projects department assisted with programming and scheduling an e-mail blast using our student information system (SIS) which would be sent to all students who did not have a certain financial assistance indicator on their student file to let them know about the study and to garner interest.  Additionally, we had to liaise with the communications team to ensure that the copy and imagery contained in our e-mail blast as well as all accompanying posters and social media posts were approved, formatted and branded according to college standards (4.3., 4.8).  Relying on the assistance and input of other departments to make headway with our study was at times frustrating and stressful because not only were we having to work a within their timeframes, we also had to balance this study with our own competing priorities in both our professional and personal lives.  For example, during the second phase of the study which was in 2019, I was juggling the study with my own workload, as well as family commitments and even a lead female role in a community theatrical production (4.8, 6.6).

Quantitative Research

As mentioned previously, the first phase of this study allowed me to incorporate some of what I had learned during MDDE602 surrounding quantitative research design, particularly the use of a survey.  The careful construction of questions along with sample gathering techniques, sample size, and confidence intervals were all aspects of the first phase of the study (5.2, 5.3).  We were fortunate enough to have been able to draw upon the assistance of one of our faculty offices to help in the actual analysis of the data we gathered through the survey. 

Qualitative Research

One of the assignments given to us in MDDE602 was to review a transcript and conduct a coding exercise which meant that we had to systematically categorize the content so that common themes could be uncovered.  I found this assignment to be quite useful because almost immediately upon finishing it, my research team and I began conducting phase two of our study which was focus groups.  Thankfully I was able to directly apply what I had learned in MDDE602 to our study because once we had finished conducting our focus groups, we then had to analyze the data.  If I remember correctly, we had approximately 20 hours of recorded audio which we then transcribed into written form so that we could begin the (painstaking process) of developing our concepts list and reveal common themes.  We identified a total of 22 concepts overall, each with their own unique definition to ensure that we had a shared understanding of what each one meant.  Once we had uncovered all of our concepts, we organized them into five categories based on common themes so that we could better convey our findings to our audience (5.8, 5.11).  

Looking back, I feel that MDDE602 was one of the most practical and useful courses I have taken because it was one of the first times that I was able to truly apply it in a real world setting.  It felt great to have the background knowledge that I had gained from MDDE602 about how to analyze qualitative research data, as it really helped me to lead the research team toward an end result which we could all be proud of.