The Food Pantry Volunteer Study

A mixed design fits best, but the roles must be assigned carefully. The survey of 100 randomly selected eligible students gives a representative baseline for how widespread non-use is and lets the researcher compare users and non-users on measurable traits. In-depth interviews, conducted privately rather than at the pantry door, are better for surfacing stigma because respondents can explain motives without a public audience. Participant observation, with the assistant volunteering normally, could reveal informal social dynamics such as who is seen entering. The key reasoning is that each method answers a different question: survey for prevalence, interviews for meaning, observation for social context. A pantry-door interview sample would suffer selection bias because it captures only users, and social desirability bias would distort stigma questions. The advisor's warning is a validity threat, not a reason to abandon interviews.

The assistant's status as a pantry client creates both access and risk. The assistant should not interview friends, should not reveal who uses the pantry, and should be free to decline observation duties without penalty. Informed consent must state the purpose, the voluntary nature of participation, and how confidentiality will be protected, especially since pantry use could be sensitive. Because there is no budget for incentives, the researcher should reduce burden by keeping interviews short and offering flexible times. Data should be de-identified, stored securely, and reported in aggregate so no individual can be recognized. The researcher should also consider that observing entry could itself expose clients, so observation should focus on aggregate foot traffic rather than identifying individuals. Ethical reasoning here is not a formality: if participants fear exposure, both participation and honesty drop, which undermines the study's validity as well as its integrity.

The researcher would need to rule out competing explanations. Evidence for stigma includes non-users reporting embarrassment, fear of being seen, or beliefs that others need it more, especially when these appear in private interviews but not in public settings. Triangulation strengthens the case: survey items on perceived judgment, interview narratives, and observation of peak versus quiet hours should converge. Competing explanations must be tested, such as inconvenient hours, unclear eligibility, or students not knowing the pantry exists. If non-users simply lack information, an awareness campaign would raise use; if stigma dominates, awareness alone may not help. The reasoning standard is falsifiability: the researcher should specify in advance what pattern would count against the stigma hypothesis. A finding that users and non-users report equal awareness but differ sharply in reported embarrassment would be strong support.