URBG 71300 Qualitative Research Methods Final Project

Explanation of method For our final project, we elected to use a survey as our quantitative method as a way to collect data on the experience New Yorkers have while commuting using the subway. As planning students interested in transit planning as a subfield, we chose to develop a questionnaire that asks commuters about their experiences using the N train in order to add qualitative color to a field that, more often than not, relies on quantitative analysis to examine trends or develop theories. Surveys generally provide a mixed-method approach to research, allowing the researchers to combine quantitative and qualitative inquiries into a standardized and structured set of questions that can be given to a large group of people in order to understand their attitudes or opinions about something. Researchers must carefully develop both closed and open questions to create an effective survey, with closed questions covering quantitative information such as demographic data or multiple-choice questions and open questions giving the respondents an opportunity to write down their thoughts with less handholding. Because they are standardized, surveys can be more easily replicated, and their relative ease of administration allows the researcher to minimize sampling error and bias. Surveys are a relatively cost and time-effective method of collecting data that allows research to occur over a broad geography, and they greatly complement other qualitative methods when used in consort in order to triangulate a specific question or theory, which gives greater validity to the findings (McGuirk and O’Neill 2005; Singleton and Straits 2005). Following up a survey with an in-depth interview with one or more of the participants, for example, could allow a researcher to dig into commonly expressed attitudes found throughout the survey results.

Surveys, like any qualitative method, have inherent drawbacks to their use, which strengthens the case to deploy them in conjunction with other tools. While it is easy to send a

survey to a greater population when compared to more local methods, response quality can vary wildly depending on the quality of the questions. A researcher may ask the wrong question related to the topic and therefore get bunk data (Singleton and Straits 2005). Open questions, where a participant can answer in a freeform fashion, can be susceptible to confusing, leading, or complex wording, all of which could negatively affect a respondent’s answers. Additionally, sequencing, format, and length can influence answers. For example, placing controversial questions early on may discourage participants from completing the survey, so those types of questions should be placed closer to the end rather than at the beginning. If the survey has too little whitespace or room for open questions, or is too long, participants may be hesitant to complete the survey. (McGuirk and O’Neill 2005). Finally, surveys are not tools for longform data gathering such as an interview or even a focus group, but instead are best suited as gauging the opinions of a representative sample for a specific research question.

Generation of research instrument Opening Statement/Consent Request Welcome to the research study! We are interested in understanding your experience with the N/W subway line in New York City. For this study, you will be asked to answer some questions about your experience with the N/W subway line. Your responses will be kept completely confidential.The study should take you around 20 minutes to complete. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any point during the study. The Principal Investigator of this study can be contacted at alexandros.lefteratos34@myhunter.cuny.edu By clicking the button below, you acknowledge: Your participation in the study is voluntary. You are 18 years of age. You are aware that you may choose to terminate your participation at any time for any reason.

Demographic Questions 1. What is your age group?

2. What is your gender?

3. In which New York City borough do you reside?

Survey Questions 1. In this survey, we are looking to understand your experience as a rider of the N line that originates at Ditmars Blvd in Astoria, Queens and terminates at Coney Island-Stillwell Av in Coney Island, Brooklyn. First, what is the most typical reason that you take the N train?

2. In this survey, we are looking to understand your experience as a rider of the N line that originates at Ditmars Blvd in Astoria, Queens and terminates at Coney Island-Stillwell Av in Coney Island, Brooklyn. First, what is the most typical reason that you take the N train?: Other, please specify: 3. On average, how many round trips per week do you take using the N train?

4. On a typical single leg of a round trip, how long do you spend on the train?

5. What time of day do you most frequently ride the N train?

Open Ended Questions 1. The next seven questions are open ended and will require you to write out your answers.

Please take your time and answer each question with 2-3 sentences. That said, if you are inclined to write more, please do! Please describe your overall experience when using the N line.

2. In your opinion, how reliable is the N train in terms of frequency? Can you describe any issues you’ve had with delays?

3. How safe do you feel while riding the N train? Have there been any incidents that have influenced your opinion?

4. Can you describe how comfortable you usually feel when riding in a subway car on the N train? Please include details about seating, temperature, noise, or any other environmental factors that would impact your comfort.

5. How do you feel about the standard of cleanliness on the N when compared to other trains lines?

6. What is one thing you would improve to better the experience on the N line? Please explain.

7. Would you recommend this train line to other travelers, why or why not?

Application of method/collection of data

Data analysis

“Memos may be free and flowing; they may be short and stilted-especially as you enter new analytical terrain…We write our memos in informal, unofficial language for personal use.”

(Charmaz, 2006) We decided to use the indexing method to help develop our memo for this assignment. Each answer is put into their respective column per question and the answers are further analyzed to find the code. Surveys were taken online through a link, participants’ field setting is unknown. Responses were given between the dates of August 10, 2024 to August 12, 2024. To develop my codes I used the coding family of The Interactive Family. The concepts in this family are as follows: interaction, mutual effects, interdependence, reciprocity, symmetries, and rituals. (Bohm, 2004) The codes chosen were Safety, Reliability, Comfortability, and Sanitary. “This open coding is done by scrutinizing the fieldnote, interview, or other document very closely: line by line or even word by word…Axial coding can be part of the open coding process but it allows the researcher to follow a particular category for a while as a way of testing its relevance.” (Cope, 2003) The first open question, the majority commented on the positives of their experience such as being overall convenient and reliable. There are little things that could make the experience better but they don’t have major complaints. The ones in opposition point out direct issues for example lack of service, being dirty, and overall not an enjoyable experience. To further simplify their responses, good and not good were used. The result ended with 9 out of 12 having an overall good impression of the trainline. For the second open question, the majority commented the train is reliable especially during rush hour. There are rare cases that there are delays but on weekends service is very slow. To further simplify their responses, reliable or not reliable were

used. The result ended with 10 out of 12 saying the train is reliable in general. In the third question there was a universal agreement that the train is safe with any rare moments where participants felt in danger. If there was an event of possible harm, participants agreed it can be avoided. We see a larger divide in the answers of the fourth question. Half of the participants agreed the ride has sufficient AC and seating is available if you ride long enough or arrive at the beginning/end of the line. Some participants ride with headphones therefore noise was divided.

Having seats and the condition of seats are different situations in the participants' answers. To further simplify their responses, comfortable and not comfortable were used. The result ended with 7 out of 12 feeling comfortable on the train. There was a strong agreement seen in the fifth question as well. Majority of participants explained their rides were considered very clean with the exception of one participant claiming other lines are cleaner. There is an emphasis that the train is clean as in no visible trash despite the age of the subway cars. Participants agreed in the majority that this line is better than other train lines. To further simplify their responses, sanitary and not sanitary were used. The result ended with 10 out of 12 stating the train is clean. The sixth and seventh questions describe what the participants want to change about the train line and whether they would recommend this line to others. Similar to the results found in the first and second questions, participants urged for more service and for newer cars with better technological features. All participants agreed there are necessary changes that would improve the experience overall. Despite their concerns on necessary changes, majority of the participants agree to recommend this line even with its current negatives because it comes along with many positives. The line is not perfect as one participant states but it gets you to where you need to go.

Interpretation of data and conclusions

We chose a survey as our qualitative instrument as an opportunity to gauge attitudes about the perceived quality of a subway line which cuts through three of New York City’s boroughs because we wanted to understand if frequent commuters on that line felt as though their level and quality of service was adequate. As transit-oriented planning students, we decided to undertake this project in order to see if attitudes of commuters of a particular line were generally positive or negative. In recent months, the botched congestion pricing rollout and intense discourse around safety on transit have potentially damaged commuters’ trust in the system. In a larger experiment, this survey would be expanded to many if not all lines of the system with a larger sample size, potentially combined with another qualitative method, like targeted focus groups, to understand commuters in their own words, however in this microcosm, we see that most riders have expressed frustration with their quality of service rather than personal security, as evidenced by one answer given in the survey, “[t]he N line is a cruel mistress. You never know when you’ll get a great ride or a terrible one” but otherwise felt that their rides were “typically safe”.

Security is a factor that has been heavily scrutinized because of media attention focused on the danger of the subway, so we were trying to understand if commuters felt that way about their specific line. Both of these points of quality and safety have been reflected in political discourse that has had tangible effects on how commuters experience the subway. For instance, New York governor Kathy Hochul, deployed the national guard to the subway in March of this year in order to combat crime, or the perception of crime on the subway.[1] In surveying our participants, we saw more complaints about the reliability of the service and lack of frequent service than were made about safety, and while we cannot extrapolate this survey out to the entire line, performing a more targeted qualitative analysis may be able to counteract discourse

as public transit as dangerous. While the MTA does publish crime statistics in a quantitative capacity, those numbers may be better backed with voices of the customers as part of a mixed-method analysis in order to give experiential weight to those perceptions (Wyly 2010).

Ultimately, by conducting a survey, we hoped to get a feel for the method in a qualitative context and apply it to a situation that more often than not, is analyzed mostly with quantitative tools. In doing so, we learned that a survey can easily glean attitudes about a particular subject, and the inclusion of open-ended questions gives the participants the opportunity to express those attitudes in their own words rather than from a pre-generated set of choices. This method, however, is not without weaknesses because the respondents are beholden to both the questions placed on the survey but also by their attention span and time. There is opportunity to connect this method with other qualitative methods, such an observation, where we would follow a passenger to their final destination to give further color to their commute, whether it was uneventful, frustrating, unsafe, or some combination thereof. That said, this method allows researchers to start their research by surveying a large geography while being relatively inexpensive, which gives the researcher a great tool to better understand their subjects.

Bibliography ● Bohm, Andrea. 2004. Theoretical Coding: Text Analysis in Grounded Theory. In A Companion to Qualitative Research, eds. Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardoff, and Ines Steinke, 270-5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ● Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. “Memo Writing.” In Constructing Grounded Theory, pgs. 72-95.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ● Cope, Meghan. 2003. Coding Transcripts and Diaries. In Key Methods in Geography, eds. Nicholas Clifford and Gill Valentine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ● Singleton, R. and B. Straits. 2005. “Replications Using the Same Research Strategy: Compliance without Pressure,” “Replications Using Different Research Strategies: Deterrent Effects of Arrest,” and “A Comparison of the Four Basic Approaches to Social Research.” Approaches to Social Research, 4th Edition, pp. 393-401. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ● McGuirk, Pauline and Phillip O’Neill. 2005. Using Questionnaires in Qualitative Human Geography. Chapter 10 in Hay, pp. 147-61 ● Wyly, Elvin. 2010. “City (square root)” in Critical Urban Studies.