Research II: Qualitative Data Analysis 0130242

Collect some data using one or more qualitative methods, for example semi-
structured interviewing, participant observation, or discourse analysis. Analyse
the data you have collected, demonstrating how you established coding rules,
and developed categories and themes. What have you learned about data
analysis in this exercise?

“Unifying ideas analytically” (Charmaz, 2006:71)

From describing to analysing data

In this essay, I reflect upon my coding of segments from three semi-structured

interviews and the process of constructing categories, using a Grounded Theory
approach. I remain close to the chronology of my research, as I reflect upon the
framework for my micro- and macro-analysis. My approach is shown to be
systematic, not formulaic (Charmaz, 2006), with three themes emerging from my
reflection on the process. These are key themes which may be relevant to the
emerging researcher who is considering using a Grounded Theory methodology.
This examination of my analysis will show that relationships, roles, and routes,
should be engaged with and ‘sketched out’ prior to analysing data.

Firstly, by reflecting upon the shifting roles of the interviewees and myself as
researcher, I highlight issues around the process of analysis and my ideal that
Grounded Theory methodology would lead to the co-construction of categories.
How one becomes sensitised and subsequently acts upon these categories is
central to the extent to which relationships and power may shift. Secondly, I
examine the implications of my decision to write memos instead of carrying out
axial coding when constructing initial categories. I show how this part of the
process needed to be, like the categories, under continual review in light of

1
changing relationships, contexts and fresh data. Thirdly, validity and reliability
were aimed for through the establishment of a systematic audit trail, unique to
the research context. However the usefulness and relevance of this trail is
questioned as I idealised the construction of knowledge with research
participants; participants who did not have access to significant parts of the trail.
I go on to problematise the involvement of interviewees who, during the follow-up
conversation, moved towards the role of collaborator rather than interviewee or
participant. Before explaining my Grounded Theory approach, I provide some
background on how data was sampled.

The edonis project commenced in October 2008 with over one hundred
participants and a research website that encouraged: free communication; the
sharing of self-published online artifacts; and regular publishing of qualitative
data, that is, semi-structured interviews where the interviewees talked about their
engagement with the ‘social web’. I made the assumption that the ‘social web’
will visibly continue to grow and change, and aimed to construct a new analytical
framework with participants; one which would be constantly revisable. Research
participants were sought from three broad areas: educators who were not using
the ‘social web’; educators who made limited use of this; and educators who
made regular use. The delineation of each of these types of use of the ‘social
web’ was similar to the division of use by educators in three fields of education
with which I was familiar, and from where I sought participants. These fields
were: residential schools (not using the ‘social web’), Chartered Teachers (limited
use), and education ‘bloggers’ (regular use).

I recognised during the pilot phase of the edonis project that three consecutive
interviews had been arranged with educators who had indicated, and I was able
to verify, that they were experienced in the substantive area of professional
action, namely the use of the ‘social web’ within education. These were
participants who had used recent developments in information and
communication technologies (ICT) to share aspects of their educational life with

2
other educators. I identified them as having a voice online and had read of them
previously mentioning the term PLN (widely regarded as standing for ‘personal
learning network’), which I had taken an interest in. Having sampled from the
edonis participants, I now briefly explore why I selected a Grounded Theory
methodology. I conclude that being visibly reflexive communicated to
participants that a new framework was being constructed during the process and
that, as an interpretivist researcher, my role was within a collaborative process,
albeit one where I was recognised as being more skilled in the methodology than
the participants.

I initially considered using critical discourse analysis (CDA), as I had invited the
interviewees to suggest what actions they attributed value to, believing that I
could have identified powerful and concealed assumptions. Analysis of this kind
would have been problematic however, as I had not attempted to reconcile my
roles and power relations throughout my research activities. I recognised that my
voice, assumptions, actions and interactions, contributed to the nature and
content of each interview, and power relations within it. These would have
influenced the interviewees’ talk. This may have been unavoidable to a degree;
however I considered that a visibly reflexive approach was necessary to show
that: a disinterested stance was sought; an individual’s feelings and experiences
were not elevated as typical of the sample; and data could be abstracted.

This interpretivist approach recognised my ideal in this project; that the

participants and I were jointly constructing a new analytical framework. However,
engaging with this approach highlights where the literature problematise
Grounded Theory, for example when the categories become distant from data
and susceptible to the interpreted personal experiences of the researcher or
participants. Grounded Theory gives the researcher the role of interpreting data
in from of them, however later I explore how I diluted my responsibility for a
period of time, where I trusted the participants to become collaborators during the
follow-up conversation. Initially though, the interviewees were ‘sidelined’ in the

3
pursuit of objectivity, where a reflexive approach was necessary to exclude
preconceptions from the naming of concepts. I start by: introducing Grounded
Theory; outlining my constructivist ideal and coding rules; and explaining how I
interpreted Grounded Theory for this analysis, influenced by the work of Strauss
and Corbin (1998) and Charmaz (2006).

Grounded Theory is a “research strategy whose purpose is to generate theory

from data” (Punch and Wildy, 1995:2) and was established by Glaser and
Strauss (1967). It enables researchers to construct substantive theory or an
analytical framework which is new, though always uncertain and unfinished, and,
in the abstract, collectively represents social actors and social worlds (Clarke,
1998). My application of Grounded Theory and ideal of co-constructivist activity
derived from Charmaz’s standpoint that the researcher is part of the world they
study and that any analytic framework is a construction rather than a discovery
(Charmaz, 2006). Strauss and Corbin (1998:5) refer to these constructions as
being, “qualifiable, modifiable, and open, in part, to negotiation”; reflecting the
ontological position that the social world is constructed primarily through action
and interaction. However, to “continually construct, defend, repair and chang(e)
social realities” (Silverman, 2007:38), I would eventually need to compare the
emerging categories with other parts of the social world. I briefly develop this
requirement for a reflexive mindset by illustrating how I engaged with further
issues around validity.

I interpreted only data which was in front of me and recognised an emerging,

common issue across the interviews. However, as I had interpreted my data in
“fresh ways” (Charmaz, 2006:2), and because language has meaning and power,
I could not claim to have acted neutrally, although I did pursue objectivity.
Researching with participants necessitated self-reflection and action to ensure
validity. I built into the process a follow-up conversation with interviewees where
the emerging categories and issues around them were discussed. Later in the
paper, I return to this point in the analysis to focus on the role change which

4
occurred for the interviewees, and the impact that this had upon the later iteration
of categories and my constructivist ideal. These categories were written in a
form which was portable; that is, they were in context non-specific terms, such
that they could be tested and developed through constant comparison carried-out
in other areas of the social world. Having discussed my selection of Grounded
Theory, illustrating its relevance in the ‘fluid’ area of the ‘social web’, I go on to
establish the coding rules which I applied to my initial analysis of data from the
three interview segments. These rules are characterised by the researcher’s
sensitivity, open-mindedness, and proximity to data. Axial coding and the
involvement of the interviewees did not feature at this point in the process,
although an audit trail had been established. Here I worked alone, creatively
coding data and then naming concepts. The participants were not yet
collaborators and had no access to the disaggregated or fractured data, that is,
the product of line-by-line coding which axial coding or memo writing may
subsequently conceptualise (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

Coding is the “categoriz(ation) (of) segments of data with a short name that
simultaneously summarizes and accounts for each piece of data” (Charmaz,
2006:43); “portray(ing) meanings and actions” in stories (Charmaz, 2006:45). I
began my analysis from the interviewees’ perspectives; preserving their actions
(Charmaz, 2006:49), while operating in the abstract. Codes were written in a
way which could not have been contextualised or attributed to an individual. I
established broad early coding rules, influenced by Strauss and Corbin (1998).
They, like Charmaz, argue that Grounded Theory methodology should not be
prescriptive. It should encourage the researcher into a relaxed, reflexive state,
where they are in a “conceptual mode of analysis” (Strauss and Corbin,
1998:44). I focused on how interviewees conceptualised significant events,
objects and action (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:103), and this led, through
comparing interviews for similarities and differences, to concepts being formed
around an issue or problem of concern to them. Charmaz (2006) states that
coding actions rather than topics is counter-intuitive, however he argues that it

5
helps to avoid early recourse to preconceptions. Preconceptions can also occur
from lifting interviewees’ ‘in vivo’ codes (Charmaz, 2006), that is, talk which
‘jumps’ directly from the interview transcript. Having established that my coding
rules gave me the sole role of creatively naming concepts, and having avoided
extant theories or ‘in vivo’ codes which may damage the validity of my Grounded
Theory approach through incorporating preconceptions, I explain more about the
analytical framework and introduce the idea of the sensitised researcher. This
had implications for my level of collaboration with the interviewees in the
interrogation of the emerging categories. I go on to justify initially omitting axial
coding, illustrating my satisfaction with memo writing as a route to the
construction of early categories.

I openly coded portions of the three interviews, making “notes, comments,

observations and queries” in memos (O’Donoghue, 2007:136). I broke data
down into concepts using a line-by line approach (Figure 1). Charmaz (2006:14)
suggests coding “(r)ich data … (which) reveal participants’ views, feelings,
intentions and actions, as well as the contexts and structures of their lives”. I
decided that initial, open coding would be carried out on data from a portion of
each of the three interviews in which participants spoke of a, the, or their,
network or networks (Appendix A). I analysed: how their talk was ordered; how
they acted socially; and what they had, or were attempting to, come to terms with
(Silverman, 2007).

Figure 1 Line-by-line coding of edonis interview #24

6
I worked between the transcripts, coding files and audio files, and generated
codes for each action and interaction referred to by the interviewees. Open
coding led me to interrogate data to ‘give up’ codes, that is, to get a sense of
what was going on here. After naming the concepts, I grouped them into
categories, which, explain Strauss and Corbin (1998), enable the abstract
labelling of phenomena, allowing explanation and prediction. By phenomena,
Strauss and Corbin (1998:120) mean, “repeated patterns of happenings, events,
or actions/interactions that represent what people do or say … in response to the
problems and situations in which they find themselves”. This interpretation gives
the reader a sense of the “flavour of the data as a whole” (Silverman, 2007:115).
When an issue emerged from data, I coded to give language to the phenomenon
(O’Donoghue, 2007:52). Prior to reflecting on the three themes through the next
feature of my analysis, I briefly explain how one becomes sensitive to a field of
research or sensitised to data. This is relevant to my examination of the role of
researcher and participants.

Sensitising means to see “alternative explanations and to recognise properties

and dimensions of emergent concepts.” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:59) Charmaz
(2006:47) states that this enables you to be “sensitive to meaning without forcing
explanations on data”. That I was sensitised to data during my analysis was
relevant to how I initially named concepts and then worked on clustering these in
constructing early categories. At this point I worked alone, immersing myself in
the process of conceptualising fractured data. Being sensitive to data or to the
substantive field of research can enhance one’s ability to contribute to the
construction of categories, however sensitising oneself through becoming a
reflexive researcher requires systematic planning, action, and opportunities to
interrogate the constructed categories. I later show that the nature and structure
of my methodology meant that participants were unlikely to move from being
sensitive to the substantive field of research, to being sensitised to data, even
during the period of collaboration. Key to me becoming sensitised to data, was
the act of memo writing.

7
Strauss and Corbin (1998:110) define a memo as “(t)he researcher’s record of
analysis, thoughts, interpretations, questions, and directions for further data
collection.” Memo writing gave me space to think and express myself without
having to consider academic conventions. During memo writing I asked myself
questions about data (Charmaz, 2006:51): What process is at issue here? How
does the process develop? How do the participants act, think, and change; and
what consequences are visible? Two types of memo were written. Firstly, I
wrote operational notes as the interviewees spoke (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Memo-writing during edonis interview #22

Early memos were mostly descriptive rather than analytical, and were
diagrammatical to the extent that related text was clustered around specific parts
of the memo sheet. Strauss and Corbin (1998:220) state that operational memos
should be “orderly, progressive, systematic, and easily retrievable for sorting and

8
cross-referencing”. However the important working documents, to which I
returned, changed, and used for greater insight, were the memos written while
listening to or reading the interviews a second time. Each memo was dated
when written and was titled with the number of the interview from which it
derived. My memos contained: emerging codes and categories, and changes in
them; and raw data, analytical ideas and breaks in logic (Strauss and Corbin,
1998). Further questions, emerging concepts, properties and dimensions, and
inconsistencies and variables, were colour-coded (Appendix B).

The memos for the three interviews were compared for similarities and
differences to form the initial concepts and later, emerging categories (Appendix
C, part 1). The memos written for the three interview segments ran to six
thousand, four hundred words; much longer than the interview transcripts. I
realised that to be manageable, my memo writing needed to be more focused
around new codes which appeared to be relevant, and the concepts which I had
been in the process of naming. Other issues arose. I had to deal with my
constructed concepts not yet being able to move beyond my interpretation of
data from the interviewees’ talk; and also my analysis becoming unfocused and
unmanageable, possibly due to not engaging in axial coding. I expand on these
and show how all three themes converge again. In my pursuit of a valid and
reliable emerging framework, I aimed to remain close to participants and data.
My actions illustrated that I perceived myself as researching alongside them, with
no hierarchy, and with trust which would lead to collaboration at a future point in
the analysis, that is, the follow-up conversation. I return now to linking the three
themes of this paper to my early analysis of data.

A concept is “an abstract representation of an event, object or action/inaction that

a researcher identifies as being significant in the data” (Strauss and Corbin,
1998:102). I named concepts through interpreting only data which I collected.
As all interview data were available online along with, latterly, my constructed
concepts and categories, I was unable and unwilling to claim greater overall

9
insight. Any participant could have engaged with, internalised, and interpreted
the documents and media with which I was working, by accessing the material
online. However, I was committed to working with data in a creative, reflexive
manner, to construct an analytical framework. The tension at work here arose
from my initial decision not to carry out early axial coding, relying instead on open
coding and memo writing to name concepts. I briefly explore the contribution that
these activities make to analysis, before outlining my approach.

Axial coding is where one “relates categories to sub-categories along the lines of
their properties and dimensions” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:124). Strauss (1987)
outlines the following as required tasks: laying out the properties of a category
and their dimensions, a task that begins during open coding; identifying the
variety of conditions, actions/interactions and consequences associated with a
phenomenon; relating a category to its sub-categories through statements
denoting how they are related to each other; and looking for clues in data which
denote how major categories might relate to each other. Initially in my analysis,
open and axial coding periods were indistinct, and I started to construct
categories from concepts as I was memo writing. I found that this approach to
synthesising and questioning data gave me the freedom to express myself, while
remaining close to data. Proceeding with axial coding at this stage risked me, an
inexperienced researcher, focusing on a later product, the categories, rather than
the earlier, vital activity of fracturing data; an activity which ensures that the audit
trail stretches over all of my analysis. Making the writing of memos central to my
process fitted with my ideal of constructing an analytical framework with
participants, and fitted with my avoidance of the over-use of early structures, as
may have occurred with the use of axial coding. Similar to the process of axial
coding, memos are part of the audit trail and can be revisited. Therefore
choosing to write memos at this stage did not adversely affect the validity of my
interpretation of data.

10
Charmaz (2006) recognises that it is difficult to separate open from axial coding,
therefore similarly, during my micro-analysis, I worked seamlessly between open
coding and memo writing, so that I moved quickly from fractured data through to
concepts. However, one consequence of not explicitly separating open and axial
coding was that, as new data arrived from the second and third interviews, there
was one less element or stage to assist my analysis in moving from concepts to
categories. Furthermore, by not utilising the support of discrete axial coding, I
did not identify the major categories prior to the follow-up conversation. This left
me unfocused, which was unsatisfactory for me as an inexperienced researcher.
However, this was highlighted by the participants early in the follow-up
conversation and I utilised the conversation, time and space to revisit data and
emerging categories; introducing axial coding alongside my memo-writing. Not
using axial coding earlier had resulted in part of the process and data being
invisible and not having its ‘story told’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Before
analysing the conversation in relation to the themes of this paper, I conclude my
reflections on how I constructed emerging categories, by summarising the
process and illustrating the iteration of the categories prior to the follow-up
conversation.

Strauss and Corbin (1998:124) define a category as a “problem, issue, event, or

happening that is … significant to respondents”, stating that it is defined by its
properties and dimensions. I moved codes towards categories to assist me with
later comparison across contexts, and wrote in memos about connections
between codes; examining processes in relation to conditions, responses,
changes and consequences (Charmaz, 2006: 81). From my memo writing and
open coding, I constructed these categories as: information flow and
management; data and people; what it means to meet and to know people;
delineating relationships by social setting; positioning oneself in a/your network;
the self-publication of data; how text becomes visible; the act of service; learning
in a space other than a physical one; individuals’ experiences; the nature of talk;
affective projection; artifacts and action; and learning and earning (Appendix C,

11
part 1). Early-on, ‘artifacts and action’ was subsumed into other emerging
categories which had similar properties and dimensions. These categories would
later be sorted under three themes or issues: dealing with new data; dealing with
new spaces; and dealing with new relationships (Appendix C, part 2). I wrote the
categories in a way which focused on action and interaction, and conditions and
consequences. This would later allow me to compare them to new data from
other contexts, thus facilitating the refinement of the categories and their
properties and dimensions.

With over nine thousand words of analysis across my memos and line-by-line
coding, I reduced the categories and focused on coding around those which
remained (Strauss, 1987). I revisited my initial coding to gain a greater
understanding of the early categories. This process encompassed focused
coding and the revisiting of properties and dimensions, and retrospectively could
be considered to have been axial coding. Focused coding means, “using the
most significant and/or frequent earlier codes to sift through large amounts of
data” (Charmaz, 2006:57), and this strategy was frequently repeated in the
process. I should have used focused coding earlier. This would have kept the
codes closer to data and would have made me more confident that my
interpretations were valid and reliable.

The categories framework which existed prior to the follow-up conversation can
be seen in Appendix C (part 2). I had analysed the concepts across the interview
segments again, to identify which had emerged in more than one setting and
could grouped with others as a category. I had to be creative to recognise,
group, and name the emerging categories along with their properties and
dimensions. Comparing data across the interviews, looking for similarities and
differences, enabled me to construct these properties and dimensions. Strauss
and Corbin (1998:79) state that the properties of a situation convey similes and
metaphors, and “transcend the specific situation”. Early examples from
categories under the theme or issue of ‘Dealing with new data’, included:

12
‘dipping in’, ‘channels’, ‘passing the parcel’, ‘opening packets’, and ‘turning a
switch’. This approach could be labelled as being subjective, in that it is not
disinterested and abstract, and risked creating space for the inclusion of extant
theories and preconceptions. There are difficulties in creatively constructing
categories from interviewees who are representing their own world, and during
this part of the process I became concerned on two levels.

Firstly, I considered whether I had “forced” my explanations and preconceptions

onto data and the participants (Charmaz, 2006). Secondly, I considered the
extent to which the words that I brought to the categories were constructed from
my experiences. Strauss and Corbin (1998) state that one should be self-
conscious and reflexive during the analysis, as it is unlikely that one’s
preconceptions and experiences can be hidden from the reader. Follow-up
conversations, for example, are where possible assumptions and threats to the
validity of data can be dealt with. In the next section I illustrate how my approach
was to change in light of the interviewees’ feedback during the follow-up
conversation, and I then critically analyse the setting-up, operation and
consequences of introducing this feature to the ongoing process. Although not
sensitised, the participants were sensitive to data to varying degrees, having
listened to one or more of the other interviews and having read some of my
analysis documents. I begin to conceive of these interviewees as participants
who, in a certain space and time, that is the follow-up conversation, became
collaborators in the analysis. Firstly, I introduce the rationale for involving the
participants and briefly explore issues around research ethics and the changing
nature of their interactions with myself.

Interpretivist researchers cannot rely on quantitative methods and analysis of

visible behaviour. They look to the negotiation of appropriate behaviours
(Popkewitz, 1984) and are “open to helpful criticism” (Strauss and Corbin,
1998:5). I invited each interviewee to take part in an online web conversation,
where I shared the iteration of the categories at the time. They commented on

13
the validity of my emerging categories and considered whether these fitted their
case. If I managed to “crystalise participants’ experiences” (Charmaz, 2006:54)
here, then my study could be said to fit the social world in which I operated as a
researcher. The conversation gave me the opportunity to explore, with the
interviewees, preconceptions, ‘in vivo’ codes and metaphors (Silverman, 2007),
which I had noted in earlier memos. Around this event, I had constructed their
role, the space and the research activities, in such a way as to facilitate my ideal
of co-construction of a new analytical framework. Although I was the only person
who had ‘read around’ Grounded Theory, I was unable to claim greater insight
into the substantive field of research than the participants, as the field is broadly
linked to fast-changing technology and practices. I also considered that I had
partly sensitised myself to data and the wider field using many of the same
communication tools and networks as the participants.

Some ethical issues were highlighted when this part of the process was
examined in relation to three relevant ethical guidelines for educational
researchers (SERA (2005), BERA (2004), and ESRC (2005)). However, as no
children or vulnerable adults were involved in my research, and the research was
not medically-related, this area of the methodology would not have required
detailed, higher-level consideration from an ethics committee. I needed to exhibit
and maintain research and ethics competence, and due to the iterative nature of
my research and analysis, I had to regularly reflect on how I avoided breaching
privacy around the acts of publication and making data available prior to my
interpretation and follow-up conversation. I had to maintain integrity throughout
all professional relationships within my research and, or particular interest and
consideration, my categories had to be constructed in a way which showed me to
be working towards making “a worthwhile contribution to the quality of education
in our society.” (SERA, 2005:i) My expectations were that the categories would
benefit learning professionals, by providing them with an emerging framework
which would help them to better understand the concept of ‘personal learning
network’. It would also enable them to understand the properties and to place

14
themselves along the dimensions, recognising choices and directions possible
through future action.

I met the interviewees in an online space for a fixed duration. I planned for us to
validate, interrogate, and engage with the earliest version of the emerging
categories, and properties and dimensions. Communication beforehand
emphasised the constructivist ideal of my analysis. To be able to contribute, I
made available to each (following consideration of the ethics guidelines): the
others’ edited interviews; my initial paper; and a fifteen-minute montage of the
three interview segments. These were accessible in a private online space
during the week before the conversation. This gave collaborators an opportunity
to consider my engagement with their data; possibly prompting: calls for
clarification, consideration of own contribution, and re-acquaintance or
introduction to some data. I provided a framework and an introduction to the
conversation, while being sensitive to the possibility of forcing responses through
my questioning and activity prompts. One aim was to establish whether my
interpretations were considered by them to be valid and reliable, and whether my
emerging categories and development of properties and dimensions 'fitted' data,
such that they could 'see themselves' in my analysis. Secondly, based upon the
extent to which I trusted the collaborators to make an informed and valid
contribution, I listed the categories on a wiki (editable online word document),
where they could collaborate on the editing of, for example, the properties and
dimensions. Despite having professional respect for each of them, I decided to
retract this facility almost immediately as each of the collaborators revealed at
the start of the conversation that they had not fully considered each of the files I
had made available to them.

Having shown how I manufactured a space for checking validity and developing
the analysis, I now reflect upon involving research participants in the interpretive
process; showing how emerging categories were interrogated. This activity was
messy and each collaborator ‘gave’ in different ways. Following their input,

15
tighter, more focused categories emerged around a single issue; that of dealing
with one’s personal learning network (PLN). To examine how I collaborated with
the interviewees at this point, I reflect upon threads in the follow-up conversation
where changes to the emerging categories were considered. In general during
this activity, it is evident that the collaborators moved closer to data and were
valued in the process of analysis.

 The online conversation allowed me to invite the collaborators to pick out

concepts, and properties and dimensions, which they believed were
extant. 'Dealing with information flow and management' was attractive to
all, although all indicated that this would not be a new concept.
 An interaction took place which helped to clarify how several properties
and dimensions, which each of the three collaborators had indicated had
relevance, had been particularly prominent in the interview segments.
These were subsequently developed into a major category.
 I was challenged on some of my constructions, such as 'Dealing with
affective projection'. 'Affective' is a term used extensively in special
education; a field in which I work. I considered that this term may have
arisen directly from my own professional experiences. However, I later
decided to retain the word ‘affective’, and I developed it further as a
category, by collecting properties and dimensions across my analysis
which named emotional aspects of network action and interaction.
 Delineating both ends, and occasionally the midpoint of a variation across
a dimension, enabled each collaborator to place themselves on several
continua.
 One collaborator suggested that preconceptions were a noticeable feature
of my analysis. However, as the substantive area appealed to them, they
stated that the existence of preconceptions was not an issue to them.
This illustrates that a research participant may not come to data from a
disinterested stance, and therefore may be unaware of the need to be
reflexive and open, and to work in the abstract. Accepting such a stance

16
 from them on the inclusion of preconceptions would have impacted upon
my claim that the categories had been constructed solely from data.

During my analysis I named several properties and dimensions using

metaphors. I believed these to be my own, in the sense that they were based
upon my interpretation of the interview data. During my follow-up conversation,
when invited to highlight what they perceived as vague, incoherent terms, the
collaborators voiced dissatisfaction with some of the metaphors which I had
deployed. Although my process had been 'opened up', the audit trail was not
available in its entirety, and therefore it was not possible for collaborators to
engage with me as to how these metaphors had emerged. This challenged my
approach to the conversation. Several times I was required to note their
experience of dissatisfaction and either not respond (an approach which,
although respecting their voice, did not feel like genuine professional dialogue),
or justify my actions and writings. As an example, I refer to the 'pushing packet
unopened … pushing packet opened … pushing packet filtered' dimension,
under ‘Dealing with new data – information flow and management’ (Appendix C,
part 2). The metaphor relates to what one does when sending on new, packaged
data, which has come to you. This was revisited following the conversation and I
felt justified, upon reviewing the coding which was not visible to the collaborators,
that the metaphor did fit. Finally, an issue concerning the role of the collaborator
arose, as one made a commitment to work on the categories in the period
following our conversation. This forced me to revisit my conceptualisation of
'collaborator'. I considered limiting the depth of future collaboration, due to the
possibility of a broad range of, and variation in, collaborative actions. Such
variety during this first follow-up conversation may have led to vagueness of roles
and may have threatened the validity of the categories which now existed.

This paper is a reflective account of a shift from considering myself to be the sole
interpreter of data, to being open to collaborating with those participants who
appear to be engaged with the research process and data. However, my

17
responsibility for this process remains fundamental to ensuring the valid and
reliable construction of an analytical framework using a Grounded Theory
methodology. Although collaborators were able to listen to and internalise data,
and understand and affect how they were conceptualised and grouped into
categories, their contributions were not informed by my initial coding. It was
unrealistic to expect participants to have the time and inclination to consider open
and axial coding. Therefore, in working towards the next iteration of categories, I
must avoid a linear workflow process of analysis, where the limited input of short-
term collaborators are favourably weighted in relation to key aspects of my
approach, such as openness and constant comparison with old and new data.

The present iteration of my analysis is shown in Appendix D (parts 1 and 2). This
clearly illustrates the issue being interpreted, with major categories and
properties and dimensions explained in a further memo. I am examining “(h)ow
participants … ‘deal with’ … a phenomenon” (O’Donoghue, 2007:32), that is,
‘How do participants deal with new relationships, data and spaces’. Presently,
my categories: are useful, closely fit data, have conceptual density, have been
modified, and are durable in the face of change (Charmaz, 2006:6). I have
started a journey to develop a transparent, inductive analytical framework around
the ‘personal learning network’, where categories have been developed thus far
which fit data from segments of three interviews.

The research question or problem will remain provisional, but will be ‘owned’ by
the project, that is, it will continue to emerge from the constant comparison of
data collected from semi-structured interviews. However, as researcher, I will be
at the centre of structuring spaces and conversations which will take the
categories and apply them to other areas of the social world. This exposure to
new data will develop the categories, and properties and dimensions, until they
are “saturated”, that is, “no new properties, dimensions, conditions,
actions/interactions or consequences are seen in the data.” (Strauss and Corbin,
1998:136) Periods of collaboration with interviewees will be confined to regular,

18
small group, follow-up conversations. This is based upon my conclusion that I
have the most important role in the analysis; a role which requires: systematic
movement backwards and forwards through all data, old and new; the ability to
compare data for similarities and differences; and creativity to name
interpretations, with one’s confidence derived from a comprehensive, intact, audit
trail.

19
Bibliography

BERA. 2004. Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. British

Educational Research Association: Southwell

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory – a practical guide through

qualitative analyis. Sage: London

Clarke, A. E. 1998. Disciplining reproduction: Modernity, American life sciences,

and the problems of sex. University of California Press: Berkeley

ESRC. 2005. Research Ethics Framework. Economic and Social Research

Council: Swindon

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine:

Chicago

O’Donoghue, T. 2007. Planning your qualitative research project: an introduction

to interpretivist research in education. Routledge: New York

Popkewitz, T. S. 1984. Paradigm an Ideology in Educational Research: the social

functions of the intellectual. The Falmer Press: London

Punch, H. and Wildy, H. 1995. ‘Grounded theory in educational administration:

leadership and change’, Paper presented at the ‘International Conference of the
Australian Council for Education Administration’, Sydney, July.

SERA. 2005. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Scottish Educational

Research Association: Glasgow

20
Silverman, 2007. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book
about qualitative research. Sage: London

Strauss, 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. University of Cambridge

Press: Cambridge

Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research – techniques

and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage: London

21
Appendix A

Excerpt from the transcription of interview #23

You are someone who has mentioned previously on the edonis site that you are
actively developing a personal learning network, but what does that mean to you,
what does it look like, who or what does it consists of?

For me it is primarily a combination of blogs coming into an RSS reader, and I

think I am probably subscribed to about 120 at the moment, of which about half
are education blogging, probably the rest of that split three ways between
marketing and things like that, technology and various social ones, friends of
mine that are blogging and the other key component of that these days is Twitter
and following about 190 being followed by about just under 400 I think and so
that allows me access to a wide range of expertise but as I said earlier I am the
one filtering it and I control everything I read, I just dip in depending on what
other priorities I have got going on at the time

You mentioned about subscribing to blogs as maybe part of your personal

learning network, does that mean that you would count an educator in the States
whose blog appeals to you, would you count them as being in your personal
learning network?

Yes

Let’s imagine you had never actually synchronously communicated with them,
would they still be part of your network?

Yes, for me, even if I have never met them, even if I have never commented on
them, if what they are doing is making a difference to my learning then they are
part of my PLN. There are people who I can have immediate access on them

22
almost on a day by day basis and there are probably a handful of people that I
will Twitter backwards and forwards or comment on their blogs regularly, all the
way down to people who I have never spoken to, never met before and may well
never do, but they are having an influence on my thinking and more directly to
my practice

You have touched on it a minute ago, but could you expand more on how you go
about managing the information that comes to you through your PLN.

My feed read is broken up into various folders. I try and stay on top of it and go
through it once every couple of days and on days when I can’t there are probably
half a dozen blogs that I will pick on directly, and if the worst comes to the worst,
everything else gets marked always read because what seems to happen is if
there is something that is important enough, someone else will pick it up,
someone else will either share it or tweet about it so I will kind of pick it up
another way. There was a point where I went through desperately trying to read
everything but that then got in the way of various other things so I have
abandoned that approach. Just playing around the last couple of weeks, I have
installed Seismic to filter Twitter because I was getting to the stage where I felt
there was quite a lot I was missing, so I have got a group there of probably about
20 people whose tweets I don’t want to miss.

23
Appendix B

follow-up questions properties dimensions concepts

Is Da selecting a description ‘off-the-shelf’? He reveals that the PLN is something

which he has considered, but which he remains unsatisfied. What is ones
relationship to those in the PLN? There is no typology being used here, though it
appears that one would be helpful to Da. I could compare conception of mentors
and mentoring between those who claim to have a PLN, and those who state that
they have a mentor. Where was the term PLN first used, and in what context?
Does it come from theory-building or has it developed through online artifacts
related to professionals’ action? This could be a term which grew from online
action and is now being claimed for ongoing, pre-existing relationships in
traditional public and private spaces. How do offline relationships help Da? He
appears to suggest that now relationships online and offline are not noticeably
distinguishable. I could ask about what “things” he is helped with. Is there then a
difference in what the PLN helps him with? For example, does the help relate to
education technology more than, say, classroom management? How have those
initially online-only relationships developed to where he now gives them “real life”
status? What does a “real life” relationship look like? Is it mutual? How does Da
presently make new professional relationships? How do the unknown, future-
supportive people become known? How are questions asked of those who are
not contactable digitally? Is there an internal hierarchy relating to responses to
questions ie how are the responses treated and weighted in relation to each
other, and to the little-known context of Da’s professional life? Da appears to
value asynchronous help and the potential for gathering multiple responses.
Does a response elevate someone within his PLN? What options does he give
himself for taking forward action with continued support? Does he return to the
person who gave the best answer? What about those whose advice he chooses
to discard on this occasion? Which “specific issues” are asked about online?

24
How does he classify these issues? How does he balance the possibility of an
early, short response versus delaying support in the later identifying of, and
approach to, a specific person and space for (one-to-one) discussion? How does
one work towards the goal of being “guaranteed a response”? I could ask Da to
illustrate what might be learnt in a “learning network”, or what the foci of his
network/s are (which I could then categorise – he mentions “support” or “advice”,
though feels to an extent these are interchangeable). He mentions the formality
of Edtechroundup. This is not a corporate space, so where does the formality
derive from? Does formality relate to frequency, length, implicit and explicit
structure and hierarchies? Is there pressure on the self-publisher to write
“formally”? Where does this performative demand to blog come from? Is it the
(perceived) audience; from individual histories of constructing text; or the
permanency of the artifact? Is formality related to factors other than structure?
Da appears to suggest that “learning” is relative to greater time and space for
thought and live discussion. What would make learning less likely in a network
or to be less of a priority for the owner of the network? There appears to be an
issue with the degree of learning which occurs in a mentoring or helping role, and
which occurs in a flattened group space. Which education topics are more likely
to be discussable in an online space by a group? How could his valued online
learning (group) experiences be replicable in his non-digital professional groups?
What types of impact does Da wish to experience? What is “taken out” of a
structured space? Is it something which requires further processing or is there
something ‘off-the-shelf’? What, if anything, is constructed at the end of the
discussion or listening period? Does the network activity continue afterwards or
is there a break in communication? To what extent does the network connect
with other networks, experiences, artifacts and theories?

25
Appendix C, part 1

Dealing with…

information flow and management

dipping in…immersed…drowning
immediate…delayed
switching off…turning over
single…multi-media…interactive
pass parcel…scattergun
pushing packet unopened…pushing packet opened…pushing packet filtered
proactive…reactive
channels…mass

data and people

valuing data…valuing people

PLN…PrN… edtech…project
people by similar role…mix…people by keyword
no costs of entry…costs of entry
fluid relationships…fixed relationships
acting on data…consuming data
known data source…unknown data source

what it means to meet and to know people

mentor…mentee
publisher…consumer
access help…access group
full attention…no attention
known for actions…known for role
shallow meeting…deep meeting
reading…responding…meeting

26
likely to meet…may meet…unlikely to meet
disinterested periphery…surveillance core
old grouping of people…new grouping of people
revealing oneself…concealing oneself

delineating relationships by social setting

old friends…old work…new work…new friends

offline…online
quantifying…trying to…not quantifying
duty to…no duty
exciting emergence of relationships…mundane established relationships
peripheral … core
moving inwards…moving outwards
hidden networks/connections … visible networks/connections
technologically mediated…not technologically mediated
participant … attendee

positioning oneself in a/your network

PLN pre-defined…individually defined…undefined

owned…exists
network…networks…blurred with everything
pushing data…pulling data
known membership…unknown membership
open actions and thoughts…closed actions and thoughts
keeping an eye…engaging
perceived flat…perceived hierarchy

self-publication of data

artifacts…filtering…action
formal…informal
performative…autonomous

27
constructed…off the shelf
valued action…unvalued action
comfort...discomfort
individual…government
linked to focus of network…crossover…not linked to focus of network
giving to…giving and taking…taking from
giving well…giving badly
needing to publish…feeling compelled to publish…disinterested in publishing
contributing media…contributing support…not contributing

how text becomes visible

known…not yet known…unknown

permanent…temporary
subscribing…targeted…habit
interest in person…interest in data
single channel…multi-channels
published once…republished
wisdom of one…wisdom of many
numbers…comment
baton dropped…passed on…becomes a stick…becomes of use
visible…missing…missed
accessing other’s mind…accessing other’s lived life
relevant to him or her…irrelevant to him or her
text message…essay
displacement of artifacts … change in workplace

the act of service

servicing…being serviced
within a PLN…centre of my PLN
known before…newly known…unknown
listening…talking…discussing
group…individual

28
aware of service role…unaware of service role

learning in a space other than a physical one

elevate network … elevate teacher

crowd source…expert
formal…informal
preplanned … spontaneous
text…talk
on tap…ordered
expert…expertise
online…offline
hidden expertise…visible expertise
visible reflection…hidden reflection
learner at the centre…learners at the centre
official channel…unofficial channel

individuals’ experiences

centre…core…periphery
silent…loud
passive…dormant…disappear
sanction…opportunity cost
easy to drop…abandoning…difficult to drop
ignoring…discarding
reading…unable to read
social…formal
agency…amenable…persuaded

the nature of talk

multiple…singular
synchronous…almost synchronous…both…asynchronous
connected…unconnected

29
bounded…unbounded
direct…indirect
known…unknown
wading through…scooping up
forward focused…backward focused
conversation…venting
outcomes-based talk…professional talk…social talk

affective projection

change…difference…reflection…being informed
always on…breaks…always off
urgency…social
wasting time…valuable use of family time
nil response…single response…multi-response
physical overload…mental overload
missing data…not missing data
interested…disinterested
knowing PLN…knowing family
in balance with network…out of balance with network
gratitude to person…gratitude to network…no gratitude

learning and earning

improving practice…improving performance…improving profit

tech…non-tech
transmission…construction
collaborate with customers … collaborate with competition
permanent work … project work

artifacts and action was removed at this stage

30
 Appendix C, part 2

Dealing with new relationships Dealing with new data Dealing with new spaces
PLN pre-defined…individually defined…undefined dipping in…immersed…drowning old friends…old work…new work…new friends
owned…exists immediate…delayed offline…online
network…networks…blurred with everything switching off…turning over quantifying…trying to…not quantifying
pushing data…pulling data single…multi-media…interactive duty to…no duty
known membership…unknown membership pass parcel…scattergun exciting emergence of relationships…mundane established
open actions and thoughts…closed actions and thoughts pushing packet unopened…pushing packet opened…pushing relationships
keeping an eye…engaging packet filtered peripheral … core
perceived flat…perceived hierarchy proactive…reactive moving inwards…moving outwards
channels…mass hidden networks/connections … visible
positioning oneself in a/your network networks/connections
information flow and management technologically mediated…not technologically mediated
servicing…being serviced participant … attendee
within a PLN…centre of my PLN artifacts…filtering…action
known before…newly known…unknown formal…informal delineating relationships by social setting
listening…talking…discussing performative…autonomous
group…individual constructed…off the shelf known…not yet known…unknown
aware of service role…unaware of service role valued action…unvalued action permanent…temporary
comfort...discomfort subscribing…targeted…habit
the act of service individual…government interest in person…interest in data
linked to focus of network…crossover…not linked to focus of single channel…multi-channels
network published once…republished
mentor…mentee giving to…giving and taking…taking from wisdom of one…wisdom of many
publisher…consumer giving well…giving badly numbers…comment
access help…access group needing to publish…feeling compelled to baton dropped…passed on…becomes a stick…becomes of
full attention…no attention publish…disinterested in publishing use
known for actions…known for role contributing media…contributing support…not contributing visible…missing…missed
shallow meeting…deep meeting accessing other’s mind…accessing other’s lived life
reading…responding…meeting self-publication of data relevant to him or her…irrelevant to him or her
likely to meet…may meet…unlikely to meet text message…essay
disinterested periphery…surveillance core displacement of artifacts … change in workplace
old grouping of people…new grouping of people valuing data…valuing people
revealing oneself…concealing oneself PLN…PrN… edtech…project how text becomes visible
people by similar role…mix…people by keyword
what it means to meet and to know people no costs of entry…costs of entry elevate network … elevate teacher
fluid relationships…fixed relationships crowd source…expert
centre…core…periphery acting on data…consuming data formal…informal
silent…loud known data source…unknown data source preplanned … spontaneous
passive…dormant…disappear text…talk
sanction…opportunity cost data and people on tap…ordered
easy to drop…abandoning…difficult to drop expert…expertise
ignoring…discarding online…offline
reading…unable to read improving practice…improving performance…improving profit hidden expertise…visible expertise
social…formal tech…non-tech visible reflection…hidden reflection
agency…amenable…persuaded transmission…construction learner at the centre…learners at the centre
collaborate with customers … collaborate with competition official channel…unofficial channel
individuals’ experiences permanent work … project work

change…difference…reflection…being informed learning and earning

always on…breaks…always off multiple…singular
urgency…social synchronous…almost synchronous…both…asynchronous
wasting time…valuable use of family time connected…unconnected
nil response…single response…multi-response bounded…unbounded
physical overload…mental overload direct…indirect
missing data…not missing data known…unknown
interested…disinterested wading through…scooping up
knowing PLN…knowing family edonis project categories, forward focused…backward focused
in balance with network…out of balance with network 31 conversation…venting
gratitude to person…gratitude to network…no gratitude subcategories, and emerging properties outcomes-based talk…professional talk…social talk

affective projection and dimensions – 25/9/09 the nature of talk

Appendix D, part 1

32
Appendix D, part 2

Memo 25-11-09

The edonis participants spoke freely of networking and of feeling networked in a

communication landscape which has moved towards using more web-based
information and communication technology (ICT). Each has a long history of
playing with ICT and of utilising it within education; learning about new
possibilities in a self-directed manner, which appears to have moved from the
reading of textbooks to learning through their ‘personal learning network’ (PLN).
This move to valuing communication mediated by web 2.0 technologies such as
blogs, web conferences and Twitter, has occurred during a period of time in
which the financial costs of having close-at-hand access to the internet 24-hours-
a-day have reduced significantly. The participants stated that they are
conversing with, reading, listening to, watching, and being influenced by
educators who are unconnected to their workplace or previous episodes of
professional development. They have enough knowledge of online spaces and
the paths of useful data, to enable them to purposefully structure their time to
consume or publish online educational content.

Many educationists now talk of having a ‘personal learning network’; particularly

those who actively use Twitter and associated ‘social web’ technologies. The
building of one’s PLN is regularly advocated in social, educational spaces;
particularly by those educationists who state that possessing such a network is
good for them, and by implication those colleagues and organisations who are
part of their network. However, each interviewee deeply reflected on their
actions and thoughts around their PLN; a term which, of interest, was never
grounded by them in any literature, for example ‘connectivism’ (Siemens) or
‘communities of practice’ (Wenger). The term PLN was used loosely to describe
having great control over what information was ‘pushed’ in their direction and
from whom data comes. As such, I find several properties and dimensions

33
emerging which provide a framework for analysing what is occurring (see poster
presentation). The interviewees provide a range of possible ways that one could
be positioned in their PLN. As much of the control over the composition of the
PLN is theirs, it does appear to be educator-centred and not child-centred. They
may speak of themselves firmly at the centre of the relationships and data flow,
or within it; possibly recognising the multiplicity of connections which may mean
that they are unrecognisable and not acknowledged by the owner of the PLN. It
appears that the much-used term, ‘network’ may now be inappropriate as
educational data moves along established paths but also travels to those who
were previously unknown to the person making their text or other media visible;
or who remain invisible but are, nonetheless, affected by the published artifact. It
also involves accumulating connections as a potential audience for, or
collaboration around, self-published online educational content. It appears that
people fall in and out of someone else’s PLN according to whether they are
presently noticed by the owner, or are involved in the ‘pushing’ and ‘pulling’ of
valued educational data.

The interviewees were aware that relationships, data and spaces are delineated
differently now, and despite giving examples of powerful communication and
collaboration, anxieties surfaced around one’s standing in a network and in
education groupings such as the classroom or staffroom, populated by people
who, although often referred to as part of their PLN, are deficient in terms of not
having access to the knowledge, expertise, and service (commitment to support)
in place for the owner of the PLN. Opportunity costs of engaging with one’s PLN
are becoming noticeable, such as: relaxing away from work; family life; and
meeting in existing non-online spaces with old contacts. On occasion, moving
from engaging with online data sources, relationships and spaces to only
‘keeping an eye-on’, meant having to cope with: missing constant new data;
switching off from performative learning-for-work; and the possibility of the
number of valuable connections shrinking.

34