2.1 Qualitative research approach: the case-study
        2.2 Constructivist Grounded Theory
Remark: the reflexive process of memoing is illustrated on a separate page.

The constructivist approach starts with specific questions on a substantive area whereas CGT has no preconceived questions prior to the study.

In my original research proposal I formulated a number of research questions, preconceived from my experience as a teacher, teacher-trainer and Twitter user. The preliminary research questions focus on the Networks of Practice (Twitter) that serve as a vehicle by which teachers continually develop themselves. The fact that specfic questions were formulated distinguish the constructive grounded theory from the classical grounded theory - where the process of emerging theory from data is established without preconceived questions.

The position of the literature review: the question is not if a literature review is appropriate (it is), but the question is when literature is used to act as a form of data, and when the literature should be conducted.

“While engagement with existing literature prior to the primary data collection is characteristic of most strategies, Glaser and Strauss originally argued explicitly against this.” (Dunne, 2011, p. 113) The fact that I encountered few theories on Twitter and CPD changed my view on the position of the literature review. Secondly, I did not intend to validate a particular theory with data from the participants. I intended to have an open focus and let categories emerge from the data of the participants. This made constructivist grounde theory appropriate for the purpose of my case study.

2.3 Data collection techniques

a) Sampling

Considering the enormous amounts of teachers on Twitter and the neverending stream of tweets I was not in the position to collect data from my entire target population. As Biggam (2011) confirms, I needed to collect data from a selection of my population. There are a number of sampling techniques that can be used including random sampling, simple random sampling, stratified sampling, cluster sampling, systematic sampling, quota sampling, and convenience sampling.

How did I approach my sampling? I launched an open call for participants on Twitter (May, 2015). Since my intention was to investigate Flemish teachers in secondary with a minimum of five years of experience, I launched that call in Dutch. You’ll find the call for participants in this blogpost.  The call was descriptive in specifying the target group and the purpose of my research. A Google translation of that post here.

The intention was to test the power of my Twitter network first before specifically addressing a number of relevant Twitter teachers amongst my followers. This open call was tweeted, retweeted and shared on Facebook (snowball referral). Tweets gathered in this Storify.

People also suggested teachers in their own networks beyond mine. This was Twitter power at its best. Thus, my sampling technique was a combination of simple random sampling (not everybody had the same chance of being selected),  quota sampling (no more than fifteen teachers needed), and convenience sampling (the open nature of my Twitter network made sampling convenient for me).

As I already mentioned in the Scope section, this convenience sampling has had implications for the interpretation of my results. Although my sample may have had particular responses, I have reasonable confidence that my analysis indicates the emerging main category of inspiration, as described in the Findings section.

After half a day of online activity, I had my participants. The list of particpating teachers and their Twitter profiles:

To cover the participants in function of my purpose I checked the following:

• Are they “automated” tweeters? Like @janbommerez or @lollyhaskal who tweet automated through Bufferapp or Hootsuite. I wanted to avoid that type of users, and none of them used twitter for self-promotion by automatised tweeting.
• Is there a balance between male and female teachers (although education is a typical female matter in Flanders (15% male teachers in 2010)?
• Checked their Twitter profiles for being an active teacher on Twitter
• over 5 yrs of teaching experience
• secondary education
• regular tweeting: plus ten tweets per month
• last tweeting activity: no older than one month
• regular retweeting
• tweeting in own name, not in name of an organisation
• regularly favouriting tweets (which proves their activity on Twitter)

b) Methods of data gathering

Word clouds

An initial assignment was given to the participants to gather their first perceptions on the use of Twitter in their professional practice. Main purpose of this preparatory assignment was to gain first insight into their perceived values of the social medium and to feed the individual interviews.

Individual interviews

Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with most of the participants. This happened in real life, through Skype or through a telephone conversation. All interviews were recorded (in Dutch), transcribed into notes and bundled in a concept map. Since I have the tendency to visualise notions and concepts I preferred summarising the interviews in this way, instead of transcribing the entire interviews. I give evidence of my notes in this shared Google Drive folder . I intended to make this iterative process of data analysis as effective as possible. Transcribing the entire interviews and translating them into English did not seem very effective. I would have lost precious time in translating many sentences that are not relevant to this study.

Main guiding questions for the interviews were:

• How often do you use Twitter?
• How frequent do you post tweets?
• How often do you retweet?
• Do you use Direct Messages?
• How do you access Twitter (mobile, tablet, PC or laptop)
• What are the main reasons you use Twitter for (perceived values)?
• Why and how do you use Twitter for professional development?
• Do you also use it for non-professional use?
• How do you feel using that social medium in your professional practice?
• What’s the difference with more “traditional” ways of professional development like a workshop?
• What are the downsides of using Twitter?

These questions originated from my own perspective as a Twitter user and are therefore supportive in nature. The questions aim at finding the perceived value of the medium, and linking the usage of Twitter and their own professional practice. During the interviews I relied on my capacity to ‘be present’ in the conversation and allow insights to emerge from the conversation. This was a fruitful process and often generated flow and ‘shining eyes’ with both interviewee and interviewer. Albeit, in the future I would pilot these questions beforehand and review them before actually interviewing.

Focus group session

“The belief that concepts are co-constructed is key, in contrast to Classical Grounded Theory where concepts are discovered.” (Charmaz, 2002, 2014; Dunne, 2011; Guest, 2011; Evans, 2013)

Advantages

The co-constructive nature of constructivist grounded theory was the main driving force behind the focus group session. The main purpose of the group focus session was to deepen my insights gathered from the individual interviews, analyse twitter timelines of participants in function of different types of knowledge (TPACK), and analyse some Twitter timelines of participants. This focus group session was very valuable and strenghtens my belief in social-constructivism.

Disadvantages/limitations

Focus group tend to become influenced by one or two of the participants. In a focus group it is easy to inadvertently manipulate what the researcher wants people to say. Thus making the output of the focus group possibly biased. Also, getting data from a focus group is not straightforward (Biggam, 2015 p. 112). In the future I will be more careful in planning the discussion, allowing all participants to contribute evenly, and making more effort tot minimize bias. The focus group session generated more information than I took up in the Findings section. Clearly, the creation of a Twitter taxonomy of teachers, and the actual effect of Twitter inspiration on teachers' practice needs more investigation and research (as I elaborate in the Implications section).

This screencast illustrates my intentions before the focus group session:

My reflections after the session:

Additional data: How ready and willing to change are you?

“The constant comparative method - which is another key aspect of grounded theory - is an example of how reflective and analytical thinking can further the research process.” (Dunne, 2011, p. 118) During the analysis of the individual interviews the concept of "openness to experience"  emerged.

This link with an open mindset lead to further data gathering by means of a test on adaptability and change, developed by Sheffield Hallam Uni. Not all participants did the test but the results will fuel possible future research.

Overview of the participants and their contributions:

c) NVivo

At the beginning of my research I was still able to handle the data quite well with tools such as Microsoft Word and GoogleDocs. For example the Word cloud entries in phase one were easily listed in a GoogleDoc. While processing the individual interviews it became obvious that I was in need for a better computer-assisted way of analysing my data. I wanted to avoid overlooking possible categories and it was hard to keep an overview. The use of a Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) did not intend to replace the way I learned from my data but is meant to increase the effectiveness of such learning (Hutchison et al., 2010). Nvivo is a CAQDAS designed for qualitative research and allows working with different multimedia information, which fitted my data analysis based upon the visuals and concept maps.

Thus, Nvivo can facilitate aspects of the iterative process during a grounded theory approach and can help provide a transparent account of this, which ultimately enhances validity in my research. (Hutchison et al., 2010).