Trip Report
Visiting research teams in Chile and Argentina for the
Amy Mahan Research Fellowship Program, 1 - 15 October 2010
STEVEN PACE
T
his report documents my trip to Chile and Argentina
in October 2010 to support two research teams that
are sponsored by the Amy Mahan Research Fellowship
Program. Both research teams are studying the social
impact of providing people in poor communities with
low-cost public access to information and communication
technologies (ICTs).
The initial parts of this report will provide a brief
overview of the two research projects for the benefit of
readers who are unfamiliar with their activities. Subsequent
parts of the report will discuss some of the methodological
challenges faced by the two research teams and possible
strategies for addressing those challenges.
During my visit, both research teams presented many
preliminary findings from the data collection and analysis
that they have performed to date. Those findings will not
be reported here because most of those details are already
available in interim reports and publications that have been
produced by the researchers themselves.
WOMEN AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN
CHILE
On 2nd October 2010 I travelled to Santiago, Chile to
assist researchers at Universidad Diego Portales who are
working on a project entitled ‘Women and new technologies
in Chile’. Most of my activities were with investigators
Alejandra Phillippi and Patricia Peña, and their assistants
Daniella and Soledad.
TOP: View of the Andes mountain range on my flight from
Santiago to Buenos Aires.
1
The aim of the Chilean study is to explore, from a
gender perspective, the social impact of public access to
ICTs through the Quiero Mi Barrio network of telecentres.
Quiero Mi Barrio (translated ‘I Love My Neighbourhood’)
is a social intervention program of the Chilean Government
that seeks to improve the quality of life of people living in
170 of the country’s poorest neighbourhoods. A significant
component of this program is the establishment of a
network of community telecentres that provide free or lowcost public access to computers and the Internet. Two such
telecentres have been targeted for this study:
• a telecentre in Villa San Francisco de Asis, which is a
vulnerable neighbourhood in Santiago; and
• a telecentre in Villa San Hernán, which is a vulnerable
neighbourhood in San Fernando.
The Chilean researchers have proposed to use the
grounded theory method for their study. The data that is
being collected for the study includes:
• a survey of 300 telecentre users and non-users;
• focus group sessions and semi-structured in-depth
interviews with telecentre users and non-users (primarily
women);
• interviews with experts responsible for the design and
implementation of the Quiero Mi Barrio project; and
• interviews with gender experts and authorities who make
policy concerning gender equality.
At the time of my visit, the Chilean research team had
been collecting survey data and recording observations
about their study participants, but had not yet conducted
any focus group sessions or in-depth interviews.
The Argentine researchers have proposed to use the
grounded theory method for their study. The data that is
being collected for the study includes:
• a survey of 300 users of public shared Internet access
venues;
• focus group sessions and semi-structured interviews
with users, non-users and operators of the commercial
cybercafé, the non-profit community centre, and the
government-sponsored telecentre; and
• observations recorded within the venues.
At the time of my visit, the Argentine researchers had
been conducting interviews and recording observations, but
had not commenced the survey.
GROUNDED THEORY
The focus of my activities with each research team was
providing guidance and support with their application of
the grounded theory research method.
The grounded theory research method is an investigative
process for building a theory about a phenomenon by
systematically gathering and analysing relevant data
(Charmaz 2000; Creswell 2009; Dey 1999). The method
was developed and established more than 40 years ago
THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO ICT ON
ARGENTINE LOW-INCOME URBAN YOUTH
On 9th October 2010 I travelled to Buenos Aires, Argentina
to support another team of researchers from Universidad
Nacional de La Plata and who are working on a project
entitled ‘The impact of public access to ICT on Argentine
low-income urban youth’. Most of my activities were with
investigators Sebastián Benítez Larghi and his assistants
Marina Moguillansky, Carolina Aguerre, Ariel Fontecoba
and Marina Calamari. International Research Advisor
Hernán Galperin from Universidad de San Andrés also
participated in the meetings.
The aim of the Argentine research project is to
investigate how low-income urban youths appropriate ICT
through public and shared Internet access venues. The
researchers are interested in the impact of these facilities
in the areas of education, employability, civic participation
and sociability. They are comparing the appropriation
experiences of youths in three different venues situated in
the most densely populated municipality of Buenos Aires
(La Matanza):
• a private commercial cybercafé;
• a non-profit community centre; and
• a government-sponsored telecentre.
ABOVE: The San Fernando Church in one of the
disadvantaged neighbourhoods targeted by the Chilean
research project sustained extensive damage during the
magnitude 8.8 earthquake of 27 February 2010.
2
ABOVE: Meeting with researchers, the telecentre operator
and a member of the Neighbourhood Development
Committee at the San Hernán telecentre in the town of
San Fernando, approximately 150 kilometres south of
Santiago. TOP RIGHT: School students using the telecentre
at Villa San Hernán, which is housed in a converted
apartment. It is common for families in this neighbourhood
to share an apartment that is the size of a single-car
garage. BOTTOM RIGHT: On the streets of Villa San
Hernán.
by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in their seminal work The
Discovery of Grounded Theory. Thomas and James (2006, p.
767) describe grounded theory as ‘a major—perhaps the
major—contributor to the acceptance of the legitimacy of
qualitative methods in applied social research’.
The aim of this primarily inductive research method is
building theory, not testing theory. Grounded concepts,
relationships and theories are suggested, not proven (Glaser
1978, p. 134; Glaser & Strauss 1967, p. 103). A grounded
theory researcher does not commence a study with a
preconceived theory that needs to be proven, as is common
in deductive research methods. Instead, the researcher
begins with a general field of study and allows the theory to
emerge from the data. Grounded theory is formulated from
data using a constant comparative method of analysis with
three stages:
• open coding, which involves breaking the data down into
significant concepts (categories and properties);
• theoretical coding, which involves reassembling the
significant concepts with propositions about their
relationships to each other; and
• selective coding, which involves delimiting the analysis to
only those concepts and relationships that are related to
the core explanatory concept.
ACTIVITIES
My principal activities with the two research teams included:
• listening to presentations from the researchers about their
projects;
• providing a general overview of the tools and techniques
that can be used to build grounded theory;
• reviewing the tools and techniques that have been
employed by the research teams;
• reviewing the preliminary findings of the research teams;
• providing assistance with the analysis of data;
• providing suggestions for additional data gathering;
• visiting telecentres in disadvantaged neighbourhoods that
have been targeted by the Chilean research project; and
• delivering a presentation about issues and experiences
building grounded theory.
CHOOSING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Choosing to use a qualitative research method such as
grounded theory is not always an easy decision. The Chilean
research team voiced concerns about general academic
and disciplinary resistance to qualitative research, and the
potential for those attitudes to impact on the acceptance
of their study. While I understand the historical reasons for
3
these concerns, I don’t believe any special justification for
using qualitative research is necessary in the case of either
the Chilean or the Argentine study.
Qualitative research has traditionally been a staple of
many fields within the social sciences, and during the
past two decades there has been a significant shift toward
qualitative research methods in many other disciplines
such as business, health and education (Miles & Huberman
1994, p. 1). Even within traditionally quantitative fields such
as information systems, qualitative researchers now have
substantial representation on the editorial boards of major
journals, and best paper awards in journals and conferences
have been given for qualitative research papers.
Qualitative research methods are a particularly
appropriate choice for the studies in Chile and Argentina for
several reasons.
• The studies in Chile and Argentina are concerned with
the social impact and appropriation of ICTs. The nature
of the research problem is well suited to qualitative
research methods that are commonly used within the
social sciences.
• The less that is known about a phenomenon, the more
difficult it is to measure and study using quantitative
methods. The degree of uncertainty surrounding the
impact of public access to ICTs makes qualitative
methods entirely appropriate for these studies.
• Studies of ICT community access initiatives in Chile and
Argentina have historically been quantitative, and this
project provides an opportunity to redress that imbalance.
• The qualitative studies in Chile and Argentina will provide
an interesting counterpoint to the quantitative studies in
the Amy Mahan Research Fellowship Program, enriching
the outcomes of the overall program.
DATA COLLECTION
This section summarises some of the issues associated with
data collection that were discussed with the research teams
in Chile and Argentina.
Semi-structured in-depth interviews
Both research teams discussed the suitability of using semistructured in-depth interviews and focus-groups as a means
of data collection in their studies. In-depth interviewing
involves asking open-ended questions about general topics,
allowing the informants to talk about topics that are
important from their perspective, and probing for details
about their experiences.
In-depth interviewing is a very appropriate method of
data collection for these studies because a primary focus of
this technique is ‘to understand the significance of human
experiences as described from the actor’s perspective’
(Minichiello et al. 1995, p. 12). Quantitative research
methods are often less effective at capturing the subject’s
perspective ‘because they have to rely on more remote,
inferential empirical materials’ (Denzin & Lincoln 1994, p.
5). In contrast, in-depth interviews offer the flexibility of
‘understanding the informants’ perspectives on their lives,
experiences, or situations as expressed in their own words’
(Taylor & Bogdan 1998, p. 88).
Primary interview questions
The Chilean researchers discussed the process of deriving
interview questions from their study’s central research
question and associated theory questions. The large number
of questions that they had prepared for their interviews
prompted a warning that it might be necessary to cut some
of them if the duration of the interviews becomes too long.
We discussed the need for care when determining the
order in which questions will be posed to informants to
avoid ‘coming on too strong’ early in the interviews. One
of the researchers likened this issue to difficulties that arose
when administering their survey. Some survey respondents
refused to answer questions about life goals or dreams either
because they felt it was too personal or because they rarely
thought about the subject.
The fact that interview questions have been prepared
in advance for these studies does not mean that semistructured interviews are conducted in the same structured
manner as a controlled survey-style interview. The interview
questions form the basis of an interview guide, which helps
the researchers to ensure that key topics are explored with
each informant.
Probing interview questions
Both research teams asked for suggestions about how to
deal with brief yes/no responses from study participants
during interviews. This has been a particular problem for
the Argentine researchers who are often faced with noncommunicative youths in their study.
ABOVE: Some of the Argentine researchers at Universidad
de San Andrés in Buenos Aires.
4
ABOVE: Villa San Francisco de Asis is one of the
neighbourhoods targeted by the Chilean study.
ABOVE: School students and others using the telecentre at
Villa San Francisco de Asis.
The use of probing questions is one strategy for handling
this problem. Taylor and Bogdan (1998) mention two
types of questions in their description of semi-structured
interviewing: open-ended primary questions which are used
to introduce key topics, and probing secondary questions
which are used to clarify the informants’ words and
gain more detail. The primary open-ended questions are
prepared in advance, and the follow-up questions, probes,
prompts and other interventions are improvised during the
interviews. Follow-up probes such as ‘Can you provide an
example’, allow informants to expand their initial responses
in a more open way.
Probing secondary questions can be used as a feature of
any semi-structured interview, not just those with noncommunicative informants. In fact, the use of probing
questions is the main element that ‘differentiates indepth interviewing from normal everyday conversations’
(Minichiello et al. 1995, p. 89). In normal conversation,
people tend to mentally fill in any gaps in meaning in the
other person’s words. In contrast, in-depth interviewers
must often set aside what they think they know and probe
for clarification and greater detail, even at the risk of
appearing naive.
emerging concepts and relationships. Miles and Huberman
(1994, p. 29) explain:
Theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation
When has a researcher collected enough data for a grounded
theory study? How many interviews are required? These
were common questions from both research teams. The
answers can be found in the concepts of theoretical
sampling and theoretical saturation, which are fundamental
to grounded theory research.
Theoretical sampling is a procedure whereby ‘researchers
consciously select additional cases to be studied according
to the potential for developing new insights or expanding
and refining those already gained’ (Taylor & Bogdan 1998,
pp. 26−27). Unlike statistical sampling, which aims to be
representative of the population under study, theoretical
sampling aims to maximise opportunities for exploring
Qualifying this definition, Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 70)
suggest that the depth of inquiry into different categories
will vary because not all categories are equally relevant to
the emerging theory. Core categories should be saturated
as completely as possible. Efforts to saturate less relevant
categories should not be made at the expense of the core
categories.
The Chilean researchers also asked if it is necessary
to have multiple interviews with people who participate
in a grounded theory study. The answer is no. A single
interview can provide a significant amount of rich data.
When informants participate in a study voluntarily, with no
financial incentive, it is often impractical to expect them to
participate in more than one interview.
Choices of informants, episodes, and interactions are being
driven by a conceptual question, not by a concern for
“representativeness.” To get to the construct, we need to see
different instances of it, at different moments, in different
places, with different people. The prime concern is with the
conditions under which the construct or theory operates, not
with the generalization of the findings to other settings.
Since theoretical sampling is conducted on the basis of
emerging concepts, ‘neither the number nor the type of
informants needs to be specified beforehand’ (Taylor &
Bogdan 1998, p. 92). The researcher begins the study with a
general idea of the type of people who will be interviewed,
but is prepared to modify those plans after the initial
interviews. Data collection continues until the researcher
achieves theoretical saturation—the point at which
‘no additional data can be found that would add to the
categories being developed and examined’ (Minichiello et al.
1995, p. 162). Strauss and Corbin (1998, p. 212) provide a
more precise definition, stating that a category is considered
saturated when:
… (a) no new or relevant data seem to emerge regarding a
category, (b) the category is well developed in terms of its
properties and dimensions demonstrating variation, and (c) the
relationships among categories are well established …
5
DATA ANALYSIS
Interview locations
The Chilean researchers asked if interviews for a grounded
theory study should be conducted in a particular type of
location. Ideally, interviews should be conducted in a private
place where both parties can talk without interruption and
where the informant will feel relaxed. However, this is not
always possible. For example, the Argentine researchers
generally have to conduct their interviews in a public venue
such as a cybercafé or a telecentre, where their informants
may be surrounded by peers.
This section summarises some of the issues associated with
data analysis that were discussed with the research teams in
Chile and Argentina.
Avoiding preconceptions
Both research teams expressed concerns about the
possibility of being too familiar with relevant literature
such as Self Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan 2000) at
the outset of their studies. These concerns related to the
fact that grounded theory researchers are encouraged to
commence their studies with as few preconceived ideas as
possible—particularly preconceived theories that specify
relevant concepts and hypotheses (Glaser 1978, pp. 2−3;
Glaser & Strauss 1967, pp. 33−34). Glaser (1998, p. 68)
explains the reason for this principle:
Researchers’ notes and observations
The Argentine researchers asked if the observations that
they record within public venues can be used as data in a
grounded theory study. That is certainly the case. There is
no reason for the data in a grounded theory study to be
limited to interview transcripts alone. The researchers’ notes
and related documents are equally valid.
To illustrate this point, I recall the Chilean researchers
describing their assistants Daniella and Soledad as the
project’s ‘eyes and ears’ during their administration of
the survey to people at the targeted telecentres. During
a visit to one neighbourhood, the research assistants
detected some community disapproval of the local
Neighbourhood Development Committee. The Quiero Mi
Barrio intervention team had recently left the community
and some residents were feeling cynical about what had
been accomplished by the program. Old problems such as
crime and unemployment persisted. These observations
should be recorded and incorporated into the data analysis
because they might provide useful insights when analysed in
conjunction with other data.
This dictum is brought about by the concern not to
contaminate, constrain, inhibit, stifle or otherwise impede
the researcher’s effort to discover emergent concepts and
hypotheses, properties and theoretical codes from the data
that truly fit, are relevant and work. He is free of received
or preconceived concepts that may really not fit, work, or be
relevant but appear to do so momentarily.
One way of managing this potential conflict would be to
keep in mind the key concepts and relationships of SelfDetermination Theory, but to introduce these concepts into
the study as codes only if they are genuinely evident in the
data. As Dey (1999, p. 251) says, ‘conceptual frameworks
can act as guides rather than as prison guards … prior
concepts need not become preconceptions’. The important
point is that researchers must explore the evidence on
its own terms rather than immediately fitting it into a
preconceived framework.
If the principles of Self-Determination Theory do
not feature strongly in the theory that emerges from the
data, they do not have to be discounted entirely. Once
the emerging theory is sufficiently developed and close
to completion, the researchers can compare and contrast
it with Self-Determination Theory in their report. Glaser
and Strauss (1967, p. 46) note that a grounded theory
will combine ‘mostly concepts and hypotheses that have
emerged from the data with some existing ones that are
clearly useful’.
This suggestion is not too dissimilar from the approach
that researchers must take as a matter of course in every
grounded theory study. Any researcher, no matter how
inductive, approaches a study with some orienting ideas—
rudimentary concepts about the phenomenon being studied,
general research questions, hunches about where to look for
answers, biases from previous experience, and so on (Miles
& Huberman 1994, p. 17). Even Glaser and Strauss (1967,
p. 253) acknowledge that no researcher ‘can possibly erase
from his mind all the theory he knows before he begins his
research’. The extent to which a grounded theory researcher
can remain faithful to the data and avoid being unduly
influenced by preconceived ideas is a matter of degree.
ABOVE: Chilean researchers Alejandra Phillippi and
Patricia Peña from Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago.
6
TOP LEFT: The San Fernando region in the foothills of
the Andes mountains is known as the heart of Chilean
agriculture. The San Hernán telecentre is located in this
area. BOTTOM LEFT: Residents of Villa San Hernán
requested 3-metre tall steel security fences around their
apartment blocks from the social intervention program,
Quiero Mi Barrio. ABOVE: Meeting with researchers, the
telecentre operator and a member of the Neighbourhood
Development Committee at the telecentre in Villa San
Francsico de Asis.
This advice about avoiding preconceived ideas is
particularly relevant to the Argentine researchers, who
have been using predetermined codes from the survey and
the literature in their open coding of the data. The team
has taken this approach because having six researchers
conducting and coding interviews simultaneously makes
coordination very difficult. Nevertheless, relying so heavily
upon assumptions about what ought to be found in the data
is problematic (Glaser 1978, p. 31; 1992, pp. 31−32; 1998,
pp. 67−73; Strauss & Corbin 1998, p. 49).
I recommend that the researchers start doing the type of
open coding described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) to avoid
forcing the data into a preconceived framework. To address
the difficulty of coordination, each researcher could code a
small sample of interviews and then all of the researchers
could meet as a group to discuss their work and to look for
concepts that are evident in multiple interviews. As each
shared concept is identified, the researchers should agree on
a code or label for that concept and they should all revise
their notes to use that new code. This process could then be
repeated with a fresh batch of coded interviews. Following
this advice would help the research team to be more faithful
to the data.
It is important for grounded theory researchers to remain
open to the concepts and relationships that emerge from the
data, and to avoid derailments in the form of assumptions
about what ought to be found in the data. Ignoring this
advice may result in ‘a forcing of data, as well as a neglect
of relevant concepts and hypotheses that may emerge’
(Glaser & Strauss 1967, p. 34).
Theorising with quantitative survey data
Both research teams asked if the quantitative results
obtained from their surveys could be integrated into their
qualitative data analysis and grounded theory development.
The answer is yes. The use of quantitative survey results in
a qualitative study may seem contradictory, but this is not
the case. Drawing on Salomon (1991), Miles and Huberman
(1994, p. 41) state that the issue is not quantitativequalitative at all, but ‘whether we are taking an “analytic”
approach to understanding a few controlled variables, or a
“systemic” approach to understanding the interaction of
variables in a complex environment’. Similarly, Weinstein
and Tamur (1978, p. 140) see quantification not as an end in
itself, but rather as:
… a means of making available techniques which add power
and sensitivity to individual judgement when one attempts to
detect and describe patterning in a set of observations … Why
throw away anything helpful?
7
Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 185) have no objections to
the use of quantitative data in a grounded theory study,
stating that ‘they can be a very rich medium for discovering
theory’. They add that ‘quantitative data is so closely
associated with the current emphasis on verification that
its possibilities for generating theory have been left vastly
underdeveloped’.
of Strauss and Corbin’s prescriptive approach to generating
grounded theory, and adapt the original flexible strategies to
their needs. Charmaz (2000, p. 510) suggests:
We can reclaim these tools from their positivist underpinnings
to form a revised, more open-ended practice of grounded
theory that stresses its emergent constructivist elements.
We can use grounded theory methods as flexible, heuristic
strategies rather than as formulaic procedures.
Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 5) offer a similar
perspective:
Disagreements about grounded theory
Meetings with both research teams included some
discussions about one of the chief obstacles to adopting the
grounded theory method, namely the bitter public dispute
that occurred between the original founders of the method
in the 1990s.
Glaser and Strauss first articulated their ideas about
grounded theory in the 1967 book The Discovery of Grounded
Theory. Glaser furthered these ideas in his 1978 book
Theoretical Sensitivity, however, ‘the abstract terms and dense
writing Glaser employed rendered the book inaccessible to
many readers’ (Charmaz 2000, p. 512). Grounded theory
gained a wider audience when Strauss and Corbin released
the book Basics of Qualitative Research in 1990. Glaser
repudiated this publication, claiming that it bore little
resemblance to the original method that was expounded in
The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Glaser felt so strongly about
the matter that he asked Strauss to withdraw the book from
publication. When Strauss did not comply, Glaser wrote a
scathing correctional rejoinder entitled Basics of Grounded
Theory Analysis in 1992.
Glaser’s (1992, p. 3) chief concern with Strauss and
Corbin’s version of the grounded theory method is
that ‘it produces a forced, preconceived, full conceptual
description’, rather than allowing theory to emerge through
the constant comparison of data. Using a technique called
‘axial coding’, Strauss and Corbin (1998, p. 127-128)
suggest that grounded theory researchers should look for
conditions, actions/interactions and consequences as a
guide to establishing relationships between concepts. Glaser
(1992, pp. 61-67) argues that Strauss and Corbin’s ‘coding
paradigm’ imposes a pet theory on the data rather than
letting the theory emerge through the constant comparative
method. Dey (1999, p. 14) notes that ‘as this paradigm
seems to impose a conceptual framework in advance of data
analysis, it does not sit easily with the inductive emphasis
in grounded theory’. Charmaz (2000, p. 524) agrees that
‘as grounded theory methods become more articulated
… guidelines turn into procedures and are reified into
immutable rules, unlike Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original
flexible strategies’.
For the past twenty years, Strauss and Corbin’s (1990)
book Basics of Qualitative Research and subsequent versions
have been ‘the standard introduction to grounded theory
in place of the original text’ by Glaser and Strauss (Dey,
1999, p. 13-14). But by being aware of the issues that have
just been described, researchers can avoid the limitations
To us it seems clear that research is actually more a craft than a
slavish adherence to methodological rules. No study conforms
exactly to a standard methodology; each one calls for the
researcher to bend the methodology to the peculiarities of the
setting …
Open coding
During discussions in Argentina, one of the researchers
asked if it is acceptable to assign multiple codes to a single
passage of text during the open coding phase of a grounded
theory study. The answer is yes. A single passage of text in
an interview transcript or some other data source may relate
to multiple categories or properties in the emerging theory.
To illustrate this point, we coded sample passages from
half a dozen interview transcripts as a group. One sample
contained the comments of a young man who enjoyed
ABOVE: The Kavanagh Building in the neighbourhood of
Retiro, Buenos Aires.
8
ABOVE: Villa San Francsico de Asis is one of the
disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Santiago that
has benefited from the Chilean Government’s social
intervention program, Quiero Mi Barrio.
ABOVE: Optimistic wall murals contrast sharply with the
3-metre tall security fences surrounding the apartments in
Villa San Hernán, one of the vulnerable neighbourhoods
targeted by the Chilean study.
using the Internet to learn new skills He said that he was
constantly reading and monitoring new trends. ‘It makes
you open up’, he said. ‘It takes you somewhere you want to
be’. The text yielded codes about learning new skills, selfdirected research, setting goals and achieving goals.
• attaching attributes and values—such as an informant’s
age or gender—to documents and codes;
• searching documents for text and codes;
• creating reports that show patterns among codes and
attributes; and
• producing diagrams of conceptual models with hypertext
links to source documents.
Qualitative data analysis software
As part of the discussions with both research teams, I
demonstrated some qualitative data analysis software named
NVivo, which can assist with the process of coding and
memo-writing in a grounded theory study. NVivo allows
a researcher to code a document such as an interview
transcript simply by highlighting a passage of text and
assigning it a code. The code may be newly created or
selected from a list of existing codes. NVivo allows
researchers to use meaningful phrases as codes, rather than
abbreviations, which are commonly used when coding by
hand.
Once a passage of text has been coded in NVivo, the
code name and a coloured bracket appear aligned with the
corresponding lines of text. These ‘coding stripes’ remain
aligned with the text as the document is scrolled. This
practice complies with Glaser’s (1978, p. 71) suggestion that
the best way to achieve the goals of open coding ‘is to code
in the margin right next to the indicator’. The researchers
liked the simplicity of this approach.
Other functions of the software that were discussed or
demonstrated included:
• importing, creating, editing and formatting rich text
documents, whether they are field notes, memos or some
other kind of document;
• creating hypertext links between documents, such as
linking memos to relevant field notes;
• organising codes into hierarchical structures reflecting
levels of abstraction;
Concept maps
Both research teams expressed interest in using concept
maps to illustrate the theories that will emerge from their
studies. A sample concept map from a previous study of
mine was discussed in some detail. The diagram consisted
of a collection of boxes connected by arrows. The
boxes represented concepts and the arrows represented
relationships between concepts. The relationships were
directional rather than purely correlational. The concept
at the tail of an arrow was assumed to exert an influence
on the concept at the head. In some cases the arrows were
labelled with a brief description of the relationship being
represented, but in most cases the arrows were not labelled
and the reader had to refer the accompanying explanatory
text to discern the meaning of the relationship.
The boxes in the diagram were numbered so that
concepts could be easily referred to in the text. The box
numbers did not represent a sequence, but the diagram did
have a temporal dimension. The concepts were arranged on
the page in a temporal order, showing what preceded what
in the network of relationships. This approach might be a
useful model for the research teams.
OUTCOMES
The feedback that I received from the research teams about
our time together was very positive. After our discussions,
they seemed to be more confident about applying the
9
grounded theory method to their studies, about explaining
and justifying their approach to stakeholders who are
unfamiliar with the method, and about integrating qualitative
and quantitative research strategies.
The researchers seemed to appreciate the opportunity
to discuss their concerns with someone who understood
qualitative methods, particularly grounded theory. I recall
hearing the expression, ‘It’s so good to know that we are
not crazy’, on more than one occasion. Although that
comment was said in jest, I understood that the researchers
were pleased to be receiving some external validation of the
approach that they were taking.
The meetings with the researchers left me in no doubt
about the richness of the data that they are collecting
or their capacity to successfully apply the grounded
theory method to their studies. I understand from recent
conversations that the Chilean team has moved on with
their in-depth interviews, and the Argentine team has
moved on with the coding of their interview data.
theory in his research, to share with him the work we are
doing applying quantitative and qualitative methods (survey,
discussion groups, in-depth interviews), to review the categories
of analysis that we are working with, and to recognize the
emerging categories coming from our fieldwork that are
becoming more relevant to the data collection. His work also
allowed us to understand specific analysis tools such as NVivo
and to share our experience with AtlasTi. So lights came on
concerning possible ways to work with displays of our results
(i.e. visual presentation formats).
Today our Chilean team has greater certainty about the
qualitative perspective with which we are working. A revision of
initial data findings facilitated decisions and provided specific
guidance about how to face the potential difficulties ahead.
Feedback from the Argentine team
The Argentine research team has provided the following
comments about some of the benefits that they gained from
our time working together.
Our research team found very interesting the visit of PhD
Steve Pace. It was very helpful because it gave us clear guidance
for the analysis of qualitative data that we have already
collected.
The principal benefits that we received from the meetings
with him were focused on the challenge of the grounded
theory issues. Specifically, we found very important his help
with the different stages in the application of this method:
open coding, theoretical coding and selective coding. In this
sense, the meetings helped to resolve practical and theoretical
problems that we were having with the data codification. They
also helped us directly with the codification itself because we
were able to discuss those issues with our own exploratory
data. So it showed us—and inspired us—how to conduct the
qualitative analysis in a clear way.
Beyond grounded theory issues, another benefit must be
mentioned: the meetings with Steve Pace gave us the possibility
to make clear the link between qualitative and quantitative
methods in our research. Taking all these things into account,
we can affirm that since Steve Pace´s visit we have made a lot
of progress in terms of analyzing data and facing the challenge
of methodological sequence.
Feedback from the Chilean team
The Chilean research team has provided the following
comments about some of the benefits that they gained from
our time working together.
The visit of Dr Steven Pace to Chile allowed us to improve our
discussions about the fieldwork we’re conducting, to open a
dialogue and to review our qualitative methodological approach
and criteria, particularly about the grounded theory process. It
was also an opportunity to acquire confidence in the decisions
that we have taken so far.
This opportunity allowed us to incorporate new criteria for
moving forward in the fieldwork. In particular, we were able
to gain some insights into his experiences applying grounded
FOLLOW-UP
ABOVE: A young boy uses the telecentre at Villa San
Francisco de Asis to learn computer skills after school.
This trip was not my first experience with the provision
of low-cost public Internet access through governmentsponsored telecentres. In the late 1990s I co-authored
a successful application for $930,000 AUD from the
Australian Government’s Networking the Nation program,
which led to the establishment of telecentres in the Central
Queensland region. At the time, Australia’s dominant
telecommunications carrier Telstra did not provide local call
Internet access at all exchanges in the region. Networking
the Nation, also known as the Regional Telecommunications
Infrastructure Fund, attempted to reduce disparities in
communications access and use between metropolitan and
non-metropolitan Australians.
One of the outcomes of this trip is that the Chilean
team and I have agreed to co-author a research paper that
compares the Australian experience of telecentres with
the Chilean experience. I also expressed to the Argentine
10
ABOVE: View of Santiago from San Cristóbal Hill.
team my willingness to collaborate with them on follow-up
research activities if they would like to.
THANKS
The Amy Mahan Research Fellowship Program is a very
exciting and worthwhile initiative. I sincerely appreciated
the opportunity to contribute to it, and I thank all of the
researchers I met for their stimulating discussions, their
good humour and their warm hospitality. I look forward to
following the progress of their studies.
REFERENCES
Charmaz, K 2000, ‘Grounded theory: objectivist and
constructivist methods’, in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds),
Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 509-535.
Creswell, JW 2009, Research design: qualitative, quantitative
and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edn, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Deci, EL & Ryan, RM 2000, ‘The “what” and “why” of
goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of
behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227-268.
Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS 1994, ‘Entering the field of
qualitative research’, in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds),
Handbook of qualitative research, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, California, pp. 1-17.
Dey, I 1999, Grounding grounded theory: guidelines for
qualitative inquiry, Academic Press, San Diego, California.
Glaser, BG 1978, Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the
methodology of grounded theory, Sociology Press, Mill Valley,
California.
Glaser, BG 1992, Basics of grounded theory analysis: emergence
vs forcing, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, California.
Glaser, BG 1998, Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions,
Sociology Press, Mill Valley, California.
Glaser, BG & Strauss, AL 1967, The discovery of grounded
theory: strategies for qualitative research, Aldine De Gruyer, New
York.
Miles, MB & Huberman, AM 1994, Qualitative data
analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Minichiello, V, Aroni, R, Timewell, E & Alexander, L
1995, In-depth interviewing: principles, techniques, analysis, 2nd
edn, Addison Wesley Longman, Sydney.
Salomon, G 1991, ‘Transcending the qualitativequantitative debate: the analytic and systemic approaches to
educational research’, Educational Researcher, vol. 20, no. 6,
pp. 10-18.
Strauss, A & Corbin, J 1998, Basics of qualitative research:
techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Taylor, SJ & Bogdan, R 1998, Introduction to qualitative
research methods: a guidebook and resource, 3rd edn, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Thomas, G & James, D 2006, ‘Reinventing grounded
theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery’,
British Educational Research Journal, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 767-795.
Weinstein, EA & Tamur, JM 1978, ‘Meanings, purposes,
and structural resources in social interaction’, in JG Manis
& BN Meltzer (eds), Symbolic interaction, 3rd edn, Allyn &
Bacon, Boston, pp. 138-140.
11