Abstract
Researchers select data collection methods for a variety of reasons. In our research on experiential education programs, we perceived that when we collected students’ reflections using different methods, the data we received was different. However, we found few existing studies to help us characterize what was different across our data sets to inform our decisions about which methods to use. Thus, the purpose of our study was to compare data richness across three data sets from previous studies of engineering students studying abroad, each collected using a different method (written diaries, interviews, video diaries). We used linguistic inquiry as a lens for exploring data richness and considered two dimensions of richness: depth of content and level of reflection. In comparing our data sets, we identified differences in both dimensions. We found that each data set demonstrated depth of content in different ways, but the data from interviews and video diaries revealed greater levels of reflection than the data from written diaries. Our study contributes a more nuanced understanding of the data richness that can be achieved using different qualitative data collection methods. We identify unique patterns in the depth of content and level of reflection dimensions across data collection methods, which may inform a researcher’s choice of which method to use in a study.
Keywords
data richness, reflection, diaries, interviews, data collection, linguistic inquiry
Date of this Version
7-1-2026
Published in:
Davis, K. A., & Wrobetz, A. (2026). Examining Data Richness in Undergraduate Students’ Reflections: A Linguistic Analysis of Three Data Collection Methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 25. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069261462363
Comments
This is the publisher PDF of Davis, K. A., & Wrobetz, A. (2026). Examining Data Richness in Undergraduate Students’ Reflections: A Linguistic Analysis of Three Data Collection Methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 25. Published CC-BY-NC by Sage Journals, the version of record and ADA Title II compliant version is available in HTML at DOI: 10.1177/16094069261462363.