DB 4 Week 6Paul AlexanderInterviewing Focus Groups

D/B 4 Week 6
Paul Alexander
Interviewing Focus Groups
Conducting qualitative research can pose certain
challenges, and they must be accounted for when planning to
conduct research, especially on a law enforcement topic.
Lippert, Walby, & Wilkinson (2016) note that working with
agencies and individuals who are secretive in their work can
create barriers to research. One of the methods used to gather
data in a qualitative research study is to conduct interviews of
individuals and groups. One type of interview is to interview
groups, commonly referred to as focus groups. Maxfield and
Babbie (2018) note that focus groups have been used starting in
the 1950s to conduct market research and are now used
extensively by researchers in the social science field to conduct
studies. In the presentation, Flynt (2021) notes that qualitative
interviews could be the only method for compiling data in a
criminal justice study.
Structured and Semi-structured Interviews
If this author were to choose one of the two
interviewing methods, structured or semi-structured, the
structured interview would be the preferred method, particularly
if interviewing a focus group of law enforcement officers.
Based on personal experience, if the semi-structured interview
were used in a focus group comprised of law enforcement
officers, the interviewer may find it challenging to keep them
on track. By using the structured interview, the individual’s
responses can be compared. It also benefits from keeping the
group focused on the researcher’s topic and does not easily
allow deviation from the questionnaire topic. However, it does
not mean that there would not be situations where a semi-
structured interview would not be utilized to interview a law
enforcement officer’s focus group.
Identifying Study Subjects

There are procedures to follow in order to identify
potential participants for a study group. Determine what role
the researcher will play. The researcher must also establish if
they are an insider or outsider regarding the group being
interviewed. A separate discussion on group insiders will occur
later. Flynt (2021) noted that if a researcher were interested in
using a specific agency to use participants, it is suggested to
approach the agency in a four-step process. Identify someone
within the organization who may act as a sponsor or vouch for
the researcher’s credibility within the organization. Next, the
researcher should send a letter to the individual within the
organization who has the authority to approve the study.
Finally, this part of the process concludes with a phone call and
a meeting. These are many of the considerations that should be
implemented when conducting focus group interviews.
Group Insider
One of the groups this author is interested in studying is
law enforcement officers. This group would consider this author
insider, having been a sworn officer for the past 34years. As a
result, it would require this author to consider their reflexivity
when conducting a focus group interview of law enforcement
officers. Having been involved in the law enforcement
profession for so many years, this author would need to
constantly consider their perceptions and biases to ensure they
do not effet the research, as noted by Maxfield and Babbie
(2018). However, this reflexivity also means that this
experience could help create common ground with the focus
group respondents. The author’s experience may build rapport
with a law enforcement focus group through shared
experiences. Also, throughout the interview process, the
researcher should demonstrate to the respondents that they
listen and ensure a candid, planned-out conversation and not an
interrogation. They also list several other components of a
successful focus group interview: paying attention to the
respondent’s words and asking probing questions to ensure

necessary details are gathered, be persistent in the questioning,
be efficient with the time given, make sure questions are clearly
worded, ensure the questioning has continuity, finally, show
resect and end on a good note.
Biblical Perspective
The Bible offers the researcher advice about many
aspects of conducting their research. Proverbs 19:2, New
International Version (1973/2011) says, “Desire without
knowledge is not good – how much more will hasty feet miss
the way.” There needs to a certain level of understanding
before we try and take on the responsibility of conducting
research. This passage also teaches us that we should take our
time when trying to do something correctly. Proverb 18:13,
says “ To answer before listening – that is folly and shame.”
The research, when conducting interviews, must also carefully
listen to the respondents. If the researcher fails to do this, it
can lead to the wrong understanding of what is being conveyed.
References
Flynt, L. (2021, April 26). Research Methods: Chapter 10
Qualitative Interviewing [PowerPoint Slides, Cengage
Learning].
https://learn.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/CJUS740_D01_20
2120/Chapter_10.pdf
Guest, G., Namey, E., Taylor, J., Eley, N., & McKenna, K.
(2017). Comparing focus groups and individual interviews:
Findings from a randomized study. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 693-708.
doi:10.1080/13645579.2017.1281601
Lippert, R. K., Walby, K., & Wilkinson, B. (2016). Spins,
Stalls, and Shutdowns: Pitfalls of
Qualitative Policing and Security Research. Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, 17(1)
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pr
oquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fspins-stalls-shutdowns-
pitfalls-qualitative%2Fdocview%2F1797568360%2Fse-

2%3Faccountid%3D12085
Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2018). Research Methods for
Criminal Justice and
Criminology. Cengage Learning.
New International Bible. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work
published 1973.)
When conducting research, the researcher must understand
that there are often different avenues of approach before
beginning. One of the many avenues the researcher must explore
is what their study should consist of. Whereas there are many
schools of thought, I argue two major themes: Studies should be
simply designed or, if the study is complex, needs to be well
detailed and applicable to real-world application. Nation (2017)
explains that some of the best research is crafted through simple
design. He argues that research that is designed simply can have
clearer outcomes on policy recommendations or real-world
applications. For example, I contend that Nation (2017) would
perhaps study two of the four (communication, perceptions of
crime problems, individual behavior, and criminal justice
policy) in order to determine if any relationships between the
two variables exist. Williams (2017) makes the same assertion,
claiming that research ought to be simple so readers can
understand. He explains that research, when published, is a
form of communication to the outside world. Complicating
research with too many components or confusing wording can
make the end result less appealing and understandable to read.
On the other hand, complex research containing several
elements can better help to fill gaps in the literature.
Guetterman (2017) contends that research with multiple
variables can be studied methodically using a mixed-methods
approach (both quantitative and qualitative). I would approach
the discussion topic in the same manner. First, I would choose
what I want my independent variable to be based on gaps in the
literature. For this prompt, perhaps I found a gap in the

literature among policing policy-makers and wanted to study
them. Impacts on criminal justice policy would be my
independent variable, with my dependent variables being
communication, perceptions of crime problems, and individual
behavior. In other words, how do the dependent variables of
policy-makers impact criminal justice policies? This research
topic seems to encapsulate quite a bit, but if approached
methodically using rigorous measures, statistics, and interviews,
a mixed-methods approach would be well suited for results that
could provide knowledge to the field.
The Holy Bible makes mention of how important it is to
have a good research design to produce meaningful results.
Whether the topic is simple, or complex, God provides us the
tools to be successful and wants us to pass the knowledge onto
others. This concept is found in the book of 2 Timothy, “All
scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works” (King James Bible, 1769/2021, 2
Timothy 3:16-17).
References
Guetterman, T. C. (2017). Designing a rigorous mixed methods
research study. Qualitative Research, 18(1), 1–
16. https://doi.org/10.22284/qr.2017.18.1.1
King James Bible. (2021). King James Bible
Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Original Work
Published 1769)
Nation, P. (2017). Keeping it practical and keeping it
simple. Language Teaching, 51(1), 138–
146. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444817000349
Williams, M. S. (2017). Keeping things simple,
26. https://repository.asu.edu/items/45804
Starting my career as a youth service provider I always go back
to American juvenile justice systems as a field study or topic of

research. So many countering perspectives and positions exist
amongst the proper treatment and prevention of wayward or
troubled youth. I again find myself reaching toward this as a
research topic, as the logical starting point of devious behavior,
progression in criminal activity, and subsequently an entire life
of crime. Many within the criminal justice field argue this
transition into adulthood is the most difficult time in a person’s
life, leading to stress, potentially impulsive behavior,
aggression, and anger (Abrah, 2018).
Communication can be measured within this field of
study in different ways, my selection would be to gauge the
perceived effectiveness of candid mutual communication
between parent and child. This study would use focus groups
and interviews to place ratings on the level of communication
between a child who became delinquent and their parent
(Maxfield and Babbie, 2018). Observation techniques between
the two interacting can also be utilized, allowing for a third
party to rate the communication level (Maxfield and Babbie,
2018).
The study should cover the perception of how impactful
this crime problem is, most citizens are not informed or aware
of major juvenile incidents or arrests, gardening limited
attention in the media (Anderson et al., 2019). Many people in
America believe that juveniles should be treated less overtly,
hopefully mitigating the negative effects news or social media
coverage can have on them (Anderson et al., 2019). Whether
proven to be true or not, the study’s research into the public
perception is crucial for providing funding and support of the
topic.
Research into individual behaviors like what causes one
child to become delinquent compared to another should be the
primary component of the study. If any determining factors
leading to delinquency can be identified, then they can

theoretically be eliminated or at least their impact can be
diminished. For example, if excessively strict parents are
identified as a contributing factor toward individual behavior
differences between the youth, then an emphasis can be placed
on this during the child-rearing process (Curenton et al., 2016).
Curenton et al., (2016) discuss the differences between working
mothers and stay-at-home mothers eventually finding it has
little impact on juvenile delinquency, while excessive strictness
does.
Influencing actual policy changes whether legislative or
executive action, typically constitutes the main objective of any
study and if successful motivational to others in the field.
Juvenile justice is such a wide-ranging and complex field of
study, measurable limitations must be placed if persuasive
results are to be acquired (Maxfield and Babbie, 2018). For
example, significant research, as of recent, has been placed on
the age a person fully develops cognitively (Cauffman et al.,
2017). This research has driven many states, like New York and
California, to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 17 or
18, which was previously closer to 16 (Cauffman et al, 2017).
This is a genuine example of research affecting policy, data
from cognitive studies showed that 16-year-old people were
more likely to act with aggression and have more prolific acts
of impulsiveness, both factors when committing crimes
(Cauffman et al., 2017). Juvenile justice policies are directly
affected by cognitive research and studies, showing the power
of research articles to students seeking a Ph.D.
Christianity has always valued the growth of children
into adults citing many times in the Bible how children should
be raised “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but
bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the
Lord” (English Standard Version, 2001/2016 Ephesians, 6:4).
Established research into this field really begin with the Bible,
as one of the early forms of human behavior modification

documenting God’s best commandments and disciples’
passages. The Bible addresses research as a form of knowledge
arguing for people to acquire as much research-based
knowledge as possible preventing falsehoods in life “The heart
of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths
of fools feed on folly” (English Standard
Version, 2001/2016 Proverbs, 15:14). It is clear that
Christianity through the Bible’s passages support people’s
efforts to gain knowledge, which is a cardinal objective of any
research study focus like juvenile justice systems.
References
Abrah, P. (2018). Labeling Theory and Life Stories of Juvenile
Delinquents Transitioning into
Adulthood. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology.
63(2). https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306624X18787303
Anderson, V., Ouyang, F., Tu, W., Rosenman, M., Wiehe, S., &
Aaslma, M. (2019). Medicare
Coverage and Continuity for Juvenile Justice – Involved
Youth. Journal of Correctional Health Care.
25(1). https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1078345818820043
Cauffman, E., Donley, S., & Thomas, A. (2017). Raising the
Age of Majority. Criminology and
Public Policy. 73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12257
Curenton, S., Crowley, J., & Mouzon, D. (2016). Qualatiive
Descriptions of Middle-Class Families’ Child Rearing Practices

and Values. Journal of Family Issues. 39(4).
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0192513X16683984
English Standard Version. (2016). Biblehub. Retrieved
from https://biblehub.com (Original work published 2001)
CJUS 740
Discussion Grading Rubric
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content
(70%)
Advanced
92–100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1–83%
Not present
Thread:
Content
6.5 to 7 points:
All key components of the Discussion prompt are answered in
the thread.
· The thread is well-developed and fully addresses all aspects of
the question.
· The thread is factually correct, is reflective, and is a
substantive contribution.
· The thread advances discussion.
· The thread contributes to discussion with clear, concise
comments.

5.75 to 6.25 points:
Most of the key components of the Discussion prompt are
answered in a thread.
· Major points are stated clearly for the most part.
· Additional academic reference support and/or examples is
needed
· Thoughtful analysis is clearly demonstrated for the most part.
1 to 5.5 points:
The key components of the Discussion prompt are not
adequately answered.
· Not all the major points are clearly stated and supported.
· Lacks academic support and/or examples.
· Thoughtful analysis is not clearly demonstrated.
0 points
Not present
Thread:
Research Engagement
6.5 to 7 points:
· A minimum of two peer-reviewed/scholarly sources are
referenced and integrated.
· Peer-reviewed articles are recent and relevant.
integrated somewhat.
· Academic quality is lacking.
1 to 5.5 points:
References are not peer-reviewed/scholarly sources and/or
appropriately integrated.
0 points
Not present
Replies:
Content
6.5 to 7 points:
At least 2 substantive replies given in response to classmates’
threads that:
· Relate to the concepts learned through the required readings

and
· Share relevant additional knowledge.
threads. More attention should be given to:
· The concepts learned through the required readings and
· Shared relevant additional knowledge.
1 to 5.5 points:
· Missing one reply.
· Reply posts are redundant.
· New ideas, research, and/or analysis are not adequately
included.
0 points
Not present
Replies:
Research Engagement
6.5 to 7 points:
A minimum of 2 academic /scholarly source is referenced and
integrated.
integrated somewhat. Academic quality is lacking.
1 to 5.5 points:
References are not academic/scholarly sources and/or
0 points
Not present
Thread & Replies
Biblical Worldview
6.5 to 7 points:
The post brings clarity to issues being discussed, relating issues
to scriptural/biblical principles and experience.
The post brings some clarity to issues being discussed, relating
issues to scriptural/biblical principles and experience.

1 to 5.5 points:
· Attention is needed to clarify issues being discussed, relating
· Not present on one to two responses.
0 points
Not present
Structure (30%)
Advanced
92–100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1–83%
Not present
APA, Grammar, Spelling, & Structure
9.25 to 10 points:
· Academic/scholarly sources are referenced and cited
appropriately. The thread correctly references literature,
readings, or personal experience to support comments.
· This section must be balanced in the “spirit of APA” as Bb
DB’s create internal formatting errors.
· Minimal to zero errors in spelling, grammar, and structure.
8.75 to 9 points:
· Some errors in APA.
· Some errors in spelling, grammar, and structure.
1 to 8.5 points:
· Numerous errors in APA.
· Numerous errors in spelling, grammar, and structure.
0 points
Not present
Word Count
4.75 to 5 points:
· Required word count (500-700 words) is met for the initial
response.
· At least 2 substantive replies of 200-300 words for each reply.

4.25 to 4.5 points:
· Required word count (250–300 words) is not met for the initial
response, but student has posted at least 200 words and/or;
· Only 1 substantive reply of 100–150 words for each reply.
1 to 4 points:
Initial post less than 200 words and/or replies lack depth and
contain only a few sentences.
0 points
Not present
Frank Peris DB 4
Collapse
Top of Form
Interviewing a focus group, as Maxfield and Babbie (2018)
point out, has been used effectively since the 1950s and can be
used to generate a hypothesis for research. This specific type of
information gathering is particularly interesting because of the
uncertainty prior to it being conducted (Maxfield and Babbie,
2018). Groups, whether selected with a natural or artificial
intention, will often band together creating what Maxfield and
Babbie (2018) describe as a snowball, building upon each
other’s interactions adjourning thoughts and mindsets
collectively. I have been curious about the recent push of
restorative justice methods as a correctional theory to prevent
future crime, instead of the more commonly practiced punitive
measures used when sentencing convicted people. If I were to
interview a focus group it would be amongst a group of people
convicted of domestic crime, aimed at determined if victim
empathy registered into their mind during, before, or after the
crime. The impact of victim empathy, psychologically, in
restorative justice is crucial (Marshall, 2020). Arguing in
support of a philosophy stating that if the perpetrator can
empathize with the pain they are inflicting upon the victim they
will stop the action (Marshall, 2020). The interview’s purpose,
to determine the level and time of victim empathy recognition,

is then essential to seeing if this realization is more effective
than punitive prison time in preventing recidivism (Weimann-
Skas and Peleg-Koriat, 2020).
I would select an artificial focus group comprised of people
convicted of domestic violence related charges and attempt to
conduct an unstructured conservation type interview, gauging
their possibility of recidivism after serving a long stretch in
prison. Studying something of this nature requires a more free
or unstructured interview approach, incarcerated inmates will
usually not actively partake in a controlling time-consuming
interview without a perceived personal benefit (Mills et al.,
2019). If such a benefit like increased recreation time, parole
recommendations, or early release were attached then the entire
interview could be tainted, skewing the research (Mills et al.,
2019). An interview with free discussion might be seen as a
chance to get something off their chest as Mills et al. (2019)
discuss’. However, the interview might also be seen as an
attempt to dupe them into making statements that will be used
against them later (Mills et al, 2019). One interviewing
technique discussed by Maxfield and Babbie (2018), would be
to use a known insider as the interviewer, for example, a person
previously convicted of a domestic crime could serve as the
interviewer. This technique would encourage participants to
become more active, sharing experiences and feelings at a
higher level (Maxfield and Babbie, 2018).
Although lose in format the interview would follow a rough
guide, calling individually upon each member to share their
thoughts regarding victim empathy. For example, the
interviewer, having committed a domestic crime, would share
their experience, arrest, and sentencing setting the stage for
each person to talk without overtly sharing personal
information, something difficult at group interviews (Weimann-
Skas and Peleg-Koriat, 2020). After much conservation has been
conducted surveys will be passed out asking questions regarding

victim empathy, with an open-ended section allowing personal
comments to be added. It will be made clear that the interview
is voluntary and without benefit to any inmate other than the
victim empathy knowledge gained. Following the open
interview process with the insider and surveys, a second
interview more structured and conducted individually will
occur. This second interviewer, me, will ask more pointed and
direct questions like will you re-offend again after learning
about restorative justice, similar to the grounded theory
discussed by Maxfield and Babbie (2018).
From a biblical perspective, qualitative interviews are
strongly enrooted in Christianity, amounting for much of the
encouragement to speak to God within the Bible, “Ask, and it
will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will
be opened to you” (English Standard Version, 2001/2016
Matthew, 7:7). This practice of interviewing but truly having a
conservation has been used since ancient times, an example
being the atonement process, known by many as seeking
forgiveness for mistakes. A person aware of a harmful or sinful
action must express regret to God through a priest or other
clergy, resolving them of their sins, constituting a formalized
interview process with open room for adlib interaction, “If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (English Standard
Version, 2001/2016 John, 1:9). The ancient practices'
Christianity implemented thousands of years ago reflect a
qualitative interview approach, gaining information during
confession to conclude a hypothesis as to what sinful action this
individual took in defiance of God’s will is a qualitative
interview.
References

English Standard Version. (2016). Biblehub. Retrieved from
https://biblehub.com (Original work published 2001)
Marshall, C. (2020). Restorative Justice. Religion Matters.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2489-9_7
Maxfield, M. G., Babbie, E. R. (2018). Research Methods for
Criminal Justice and Criminology
(8th Ed). Cengage Learning.
Mills, L., Barocas, B., Butters, R., & Ariel, B. (2019). A
Randomized Control Trial of
Restorative Justice-Informed Treatment of Domestic Violence
Crimes. Nature Human Behavior. 3.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0724-1
Weimann-Saks, D., Peleg-Koriat, I. (2020). Promoting Inmates’
Positive Attitudes Toward
Participating in a Restorative Justice Process: The Effects of a
Victim Awareness Process. The Prison Journal. 100(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0032885520916820
Bottom of Form
You will take part in 5 Discussions in which you will post a
thread presenting your scholarly response on the assigned topic,
writing 750–850 words (supported with at least four cites) by
Thursday at 11:59pm. Then, you will post replies of 250–300
words (supported with at least two cites) each to 2 or more

classmates’ threads by Sunday at 11:59pm. For each thread,
students must support their assertions with at least four (4)
scholarly citations in current APA format. Each reply must
incorporate at least two (2) scholarly citation(s) in current APA
format. Any sources cited must have been published within the
last five years. The original thread must incorporate ideas and
several scholarly citations from all of the required readings and
presentations for that Module: Week. The reply posts can
integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and
presentations for other Modules: Weeks. Integrate Biblical
principles in your personal thread and in all replies to peers.
Topic: What if you interviewed a focus group? Would you
choose conversation or interview guiding? Why or why not?
What if you were searching for study subjects? Are there any
groups you would be interested in studying that would claim
you as an insider?
Replies: Respond to 2 classmate’s threads and state why you
agree or disagree with their statements. Be sure to use specific
examples from the course material and textbook.
CJUS 740
Discussion Grading Rubric
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content
(70%)
Advanced
92–100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing

1–83%
Not present
Thread:
Content
6.5 to 7 points:
All key components of the Discussion prompt are answered in
the thread.
· The thread is well-developed and fully addresses all aspects of
the question.
· The thread is factually correct, is reflective, and is a
substantive contribution.
· The thread advances discussion.
· The thread contributes to discussion with clear, concise
comments.
Most of the key components of the Discussion prompt are
answered in a thread.
· Major points are stated clearly for the most part.
· Additional academic reference support and/or examples is
needed
· Thoughtful analysis is clearly demonstrated for the most part.
1 to 5.5 points:
The key components of the Discussion prompt are not
adequately answered.
· Not all the major points are clearly stated and supported.
· Lacks academic support and/or examples.
· Thoughtful analysis is not clearly demonstrated.
0 points
Not present
Thread:
Research Engagement
6.5 to 7 points:
referenced and integrated.
· Peer-reviewed articles are recent and relevant.

integrated somewhat.
· Academic quality is lacking.
1 to 5.5 points:
References are not peer-reviewed/scholarly sources and/or
0 points
Not present
Replies:
Content
6.5 to 7 points:
threads that:
· Relate to the concepts learned through the required readings
and
· Share relevant additional knowledge.
threads. More attention should be given to:
· The concepts learned through the required readings and
· Shared relevant additional knowledge.
1 to 5.5 points:
· Missing one reply.
· Reply posts are redundant.
· New ideas, research, and/or analysis are not adequately
included.
0 points
Not present
Replies:
Research Engagement
6.5 to 7 points:
integrated.

integrated somewhat. Academic quality is lacking.
1 to 5.5 points:
References are not academic/scholarly sources and/or
0 points
Not present
Thread & Replies
Biblical Worldview
6.5 to 7 points:
The post brings clarity to issues being discussed, relating issues
to scriptural/biblical principles and experience.
The post brings some clarity to issues being discussed, relating
1 to 5.5 points:
· Attention is needed to clarify issues being discussed, relating
· Not present on one to two responses.
0 points
Not present
Structure (30%)
Advanced
92–100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1–83%
Not present
APA, Grammar, Spelling, & Structure
9.25 to 10 points:
· Academic/scholarly sources are referenced and cited
appropriately. The thread correctly references literature,
readings, or personal experience to support comments.
· This section must be balanced in the “spirit of APA” as Bb
DB’s create internal formatting errors.

· Minimal to zero errors in spelling, grammar, and structure.
8.75 to 9 points:
· Some errors in APA.
· Some errors in spelling, grammar, and structure.
1 to 8.5 points:
· Numerous errors in APA.
· Numerous errors in spelling, grammar, and structure.
0 points
Not present
Word Count
4.75 to 5 points:
· Required word count (500-700 words) is met for the initial
response.
· At least 2 substantive replies of 200-300 words for each reply.
4.25 to 4.5 points:
· Required word count (250–300 words) is not met for the initial
response, but student has posted at least 200 words and/or;
· Only 1 substantive reply of 100–150 words for each reply.
1 to 4 points:
Initial post less than 200 words and/or replies lack depth and
contain only a few sentences.
0 points
Not present

DB 4 Week 6Paul AlexanderInterviewing Focus Groups

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from OllieShoresna

More from OllieShoresna (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

DB 4 Week 6Paul AlexanderInterviewing Focus Groups