Desarrollo de la aplicaci´ on

The assumptions, propositions and goal of the study as set out in the introduction to this chapter, pages 78 - 82, are now re-visited. There, I explained the assumptions about internet access and social cohesion expressed in the literature that in turn led me to frame two

propositions to guide the investigation:

Proposition 1 (P1): Free home internet access leads to ongoing internet use

Proposition 2 (P2): Internet access is positively related to evidence of social cohesion.

Together, these propositions form separate objectives underpinning the research goal, to assess how internet access and social cohesion are related in a free home internet scheme. In the introductory section mentioned above, the rationale for these propositions was defended through the logic that if P2 (assumed in social policy discourse, as shown in the literature review) is valid to any degree, then P1 must also be assumed because if a relationship is to exist between internet access and evidence of social cohesion, then internet access must lead to ongoing use. If internet use does not become ongoing or if it falls away, then any evidence of changes to social cohesion during the time an internet intervention is put in place must be attributable to something else.

Although the unit of analysis in this multiple case study is the group of families involved in Computers in Homes at each research site, the goal of the study actually addresses three levels of social action. First, at the micro level, investigating any social outcomes of internet access involves research among individuals within households interacting with the internet, as well as each other and their wider networks, and their feelings and attitudes about these processes. Next, following Friedkin (2004), the meso level of social cohesion involves group

level conditions and outcomes as well as individual responses. Group level conditions may include the number and pattern of interpersonal ties and networks generating the individual behaviours associated with social cohesion, such as volunteerism. Thus social cohesion is arguably more evident at the community level where the outcomes of cohesion can be seen, although the individual behaviours and attitudes may also be observed. Lastly, the macro free home internet component of the research goal relates to the external Computers in Homes intervention, and thus involves the objectives and agendas of Computers in Homes and government ministries as influenced by ideological and political contexts. Therefore, as the

research goal investigates all these levels, the research design recognises and operationalises them in a layered, mixed methodology. McLeod and colleagues argue that

The multilevel perspective by its nature calls for diversity in research methodology … [or] methodological pluralism: varied combinations of methods, types of evidence, and analytical strategies. Also implied is the desirability of comparative frameworks across time and space. (McLeod, Pan, & Rucinski, 1995, p. 78)

In a slight variation on these approaches stressing the layered nature of social research, Yin (2003) explains that in case study research, the investigation design should be guided by levels of questions, progressing from the explicit questions asked of the research participants at the simplest level, through to the larger questions that the researcher is endeavouring to answer with the study itself - the researcher’s own questions that “reflect the full set of concerns from the initial design” (ibid., p. 74). Level 1 questions are those asked of interviewees, while level 2 questions are those asked about the case, and are tacit rather than explicit: questions of inquiry that the researcher has in mind rather than expresses verbally to research

participants. Yin’s level 3 questions are posed across cases, such as comparing one case with another. Level 4 questions are asked of an entire study, and level 5 questions are directed at policy “beyond the narrow scope of the study” (ibid., p. 74). Thus Yin’s framing of levels, or layers, of inquiry in case study methodology addresses the idea that social action is comprised of micro, meso and macro levels outlined in the previous paragraph, as well as the “multilevel perspective” of McLeod et al (1995) also cited previously, which requires “diversity in

methodology” (p. 78). Yin (2003) makes a similar point: that the different levels of inquiry need different sources of evidence, and “this crosswalk between the questions of interest and the likely sources of evidence is extremely helpful” (ibid., p. 74). Moreover, “conclusions cannot be based entirely on interviews as a source of information” (ibid., p. 76) and the case study researcher must be ready to incorporate evidence from sources that may not have been planned for:

Case study data collection does follow a formal plan, but the specific information that may become relevant to a case study is not readily predictable. As you collect case study evidence, you must quickly review the evidence and continually ask yourself why events or facts appear as they do. Your judgments may lead to the immediate need to search for additional evidence. (Yin, 2003, p. 59)

Therefore in the present study, a range of methods was incorporated in the design to ensure that sufficient, appropriate information would be collected, relevant to the questions of inquiry underlying the research goal. In the table below, these questions of inquiry are shown

progressing from the micro level assessing specific individuals, through to the macro level where the results of the study are interrogated. Here the aim is to draw conclusions on implications of the study which may lead to policy recommendations:

Levels of inquiry (Yin, 2003, p. 74-75) in the research design

Levels of social action implied in the research goal

(to assess how internet access and social cohesion are related in a free

home internet scheme)

Methods relevant to each level of inquiry, applied at Time 1 and Time 2

Level 1 Questions asked of specific

interviewees

Micro level of social action In what ways do individuals within households in each case interact with

the internet and their social networks?

• In-depth interviews seeking attitudes and

reflections on the internet experience

• Survey items on internet connectedness

• Survey items relating to evidence of social

cohesion in behaviours such as contact with family, with neighbours

• Observation of research participants at home.

Level 2 Questions asked of the

individual case

Meso level of social action Whatconditions and outcomes associated with social cohesion and

internet use are evident at group/case study level?

• Interviews and discussions with school

leaders, Computers in Homes national coordinator

• Observation of family meetings, events, training

sessions

• Review of level 1 / micro results in each case

study,and analysis of results across cases. Level 3

Questions asked of the pattern of findings across multiple cases

Level 4

Questions asked of an entire study

Macro level of social action To what extent are the community

internet aims of the external intervention (Computers in Homes) achieved in the selected case studies,

as expressed in - Computers in Homes

discourse, and - Governmental discourse?

What policy implications emerge from these cases?

• Review of Computers in Homes materials (print,

online) and various iterations of the government’s Digital Strategy as it developed 2004 - 2008

• Observation at Computers in Homes meetings

and events 2002 – 2005; also 2008

• Consultation at, and participation in, 2005

Ministry of Education, Ministry of Economic Development, 2020 Communications Trust research seminar

• Discussion with Computers in Homes

coordinator at a variety of events and meetings 2003 2008

• Ongoing review of the literature, including

media reports. Level 5

Normative questions about policy recommendations and conclusions, going beyond the

narrow scope of the study

In planning a mixed methods study, I considered how the different methods would intersect, how they would complement each other, and the advantages of being in a position to allow the different sources of data from each method to inform one another. For example, hearing a Computers in Homes parent talk about her family’s use of the internet in practice, and describe what it meant to her personally, could be set against the goals of Computers in Homes and those of the local school. In some cases I might find congruence, and in others, incongruence. I could obtain a principal’s views about his or her ICT strategy for his or her school and the role intended for Computers in Homes within that, and set those views against what was actually happening among Computers in Homes families. Therefore a subtle interplay would be possible, with a range of data gathered over time informing the findings from other methods and collected at other levels.

In addition, because ‘cases’ defined which groups would be studied, data from each case study could reflect on the other. Therefore the conduct of this study over time required a patient, piece by piece, sequential but also retrospective and holistic manner of handling the research. By this I mean that different types of data might arrive within a short space of time, followed by a delay, then more sporadic data collection over time, and at each stage I was able to consider findings from different sources in light of the other, reflecting back to what had already been found, considering comparisons and contrasts over time or between cases, and so on.

Some would describe the interplay between data obtained using different methods, made possible by a deliberate methodological pluralism across different cases, as affording the advantages of triangulation. In a qualitative study, the use of this term can be viewed as problematic; yet methodological pluralism does offer a means by which data can be cross- checked in a number of ways, given that “it is better to look at something from several angles than to look at it in only one way” (Neuman, 2003, p. 138). This is especially the case in qualitative research, in which

Qualitative researchers are more concerned about issues of the richness, texture, and feeling of raw data because their inductive approach emphasizes developing insights and generalizations. (Neuman, 2003, p. 137)

Robert Stake, in Denzin and Lincoln (2000) describes triangulation in case study research as “a process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning, verifying the repeatability of an observation or interpretation” (p. 443). Yin (2003) concurs, saying

The most important advantage presented by using multiple sources of evidence is the development of converging lines of inquiry, a process of triangulation … Thus, any finding or conclusion in a case study is likely to be much more convincing and accurate if it is based on several different sources of information, following a corroboratory mode. (Yin, 2003, p. 98)

The term triangulation is thus found to be acceptable and appropriate in the context of case study research and it aptly describes the intention of the research design in the present study, in which multiple perspectives were sought as shown in Table 3-3. The goal in obtaining multiple perceptions in a qualitative study is to increase the authenticity of the research where the intention is not “to discover lawful properties of the external world … or to extract and connect observed effects with causes” (Greene, in Denzin & Lincoln, p. 986). Rather, the researcher is concerned to recognise and understand the complexity of an issue bound up in a number of contexts such as those arising from a particular case (place, location) in a given social or economic or political setting, and to include all voices. As explained in section 3.1.3, I viewed the research through a qualitative lens because it was a priority to obtain the views of insiders involved in the research settings in order to adequately investigate the social cohesion focus of the research goal.

The variety of methods set out in Table 3-3 was planned with the potential for cross-checking of data in mind, and also whether the methods should be concurrent, simultaneous or

sequential (Neuman, 2003, p. 139). I considered triangulation to be an advantage because I aimed, by the conclusion of my study, to be in a position to understand the overall

contribution of Computers in Homes to social cohesion, which would need to be composed of many viewpoints. Of the several types of triangulation available - of measures, observers, theory and method (ibid., p. 138) - triangulation of method was utilised here. Triangulation of method occurs when

The researcher looks for converging interpretations in field notes, interviews, documents, artefacts, and/or other evidence, in relation to a common object of interest. Researchers can also use quantitative methods to triangulate with qualitative methods ... usually somewhat more credibility is invested in data from one of the methods, with data from other methods lending complementary support to the explanation. (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 241)

Both sequential and parallel triangulation methods which would complement one another and thus provide greater authenticity were planned. Sequential triangulation was achieved

through the Time 1-Time 2 longitudinal design. Parallel triangulation was achieved within the face to face interview because it delivered complementary types of data: responses to survey items, personal narrative from interviewees, and researcher observation. Responses to open-

ended interview questions generate findings that are coherent in themselves, but which serve an additional useful function of providing context for the quantitative results. In a similar way to Zorn and colleagues (2006), this meant it was possible to “[combine] the questionnaire measurements with an analysis of the transcripts and field notes…to contextualize the findings of the questionnaire” (Zorn, et al., 2006, p. 128).

The advantages of the mixed methodology become apparent throughout chapter 4 as the results from different sources converge on themes and conclusions about internet use and social cohesion, discussed especially in the introductory section of chapter 5 (page 206 - 208), and argued to be a strength of the study in chapter 6 (section 6.2.1, page 257).