Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Grounded Theory Analysis of Data From Edonis Interviews 22-24
Grounded Theory Analysis of Data From Edonis Interviews 22-24
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
16
from them on the inclusion of preconceptions would have impacted upon
my claim that the categories had been constructed solely from data.
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
20
Silverman, 2007. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book
about qualitative research. Sage: London
21
Appendix A
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?
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
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…
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
32
Appendix D, part 2
Memo 25-11-09
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