1

This 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

STEVEN PACE

Visiting research teams in Chile and Argentina for the

Trip Report

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 CHILEOn 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.

Amy Mahan Research Fellowship Program, 1 - 15 October 2010

2

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 low-cost 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 IMPACT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO ICT ON ARGENTINE LOW-INCOME URBAN YOUTHOn 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.

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 THEORYThe 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

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.

3

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.

ACTIVITIESMy 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 RESEARCHChoosing 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

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.

4

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 COLLECTIONThis 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 interviewsBoth research teams discussed the suitability of using semi-structured 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 questionsThe 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 semi-structured 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 questionsBoth 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 non-communicative youths in their study.

ABOVE: Some of the Argentine researchers at Universidad de San Andrés in Buenos Aires.

5

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 non-communicative informants. In fact, the use of probing questions is the main element that ‘differentiates in-depth 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.

Theoretical sampling and theoretical saturationWhen 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

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.

emerging concepts and relationships. Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 29) explain:

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 …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.

6

ABOVE: Chilean researchers Alejandra Phillippi and Patricia Peña from Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago.

Interview locationsThe 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.

Researchers’ notes and observationsThe 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.

DATA ANALYSISThis section summarises some of the issues associated with data analysis that were discussed with the research teams in Chile and Argentina.

Avoiding preconceptionsBoth 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:

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 Self-Determination 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.

7

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 dataBoth 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 quantitative-qualitative 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?

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.

8

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’.

Disagreements about grounded theoryMeetings 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

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: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 codingDuring 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.

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.

9

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, self-directed research, setting goals and achieving goals.

Qualitative data analysis softwareAs 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;

• 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.

Concept mapsBoth 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.

OUTCOMESThe 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

ABOVE: A young boy uses the telecentre at Villa San Francisco de Asis to learn computer skills after school.

10

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.

Feedback from the Chilean teamThe 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

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 teamThe 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.

FOLLOW-UPThis trip was not my first experience with the provision of low-cost public Internet access through government-sponsored 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

ABOVE: View of Santiago from San Cristóbal Hill.

11

team my willingness to collaborate with them on follow-up research activities if they would like to.

THANKSThe 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.

REFERENCESCharmaz, 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 qualitative-quantitative 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.