0.2 Methodology

All of the data was collected by telephone, through the Internet, or by mail. The researcher met one of the participants and her supervisor in person at a professional conference prior to doing the interviews.

Data analysis

In the present study, the basic framework used was modeled on consensual qualitative research methodology ( Hill et al., 1997 ). A research team was brought together by the primary investigator, consisting of two graduate students in instructional technology and an outside expert working in the field of instructional technology, Dr. Ann Jenkins. Dr. Jenkins obtained her doctorate in 2001 from the College of Education at the University of Houston. She has been working for six years in the area of web accessibility.

The primary investigator, along with the two graduate students, coded the process of coding the raw data. All the interview data was read and coded by each member of the research team. The team identified common themes and recurring concepts.

The research team members brought to this process their own unique life experiences, cultures, and understandings of the meaning of words. Their input provided a check on researcher bias. The team worked toward consensus on the naming of the data categories. This process helped define language that would be more widely understood by the study’s audience.

The outside expert examined the final list of category names to see if they fit with her experience with the issues in the field. The expert offered an opinion based on her experience from both her scholarly background, and most importantly, from her work experience in instructional technology. She did not challenge any of the categories.. The outside expert provided a check on the misnaming of categories, as well as a check on “group think” ( Hill, 1997 ). And finally, a member check was conducted by sending them the list of categories and gathering their responses.

Consensual Qualitative Research , like grounded research, is well suited to use with a group of relatively homogeneous cases to find themes that run across all of them, which when seen together, can help draw a clear picture of a shared phenomenon. Grounded theory was used, which is based on the assumption that people construct their own realities through social interactions using shared symbols (such as words, clothing and gestures) to communicate meaning ( Fassinger, 2005 ). Grounded theorists have studied these meanings created through social relationships, seeking to discover how groups of people have defined reality based on their understandings of interpersonal interactions ( Cutliffe, 2000 ). Grounded theory grew from the roots of sociology, but is currently widely used by researchers in fields such as nursing, psychology, business and education. Consensual qualitative research ( Hill, 1997 ) has been widely used in humanities and social science research.

The following summary of qualitative content analysis describes the stages of the process:

• Research questions were identified.
• Data was transcribed, read, and sorted into grounded categories representing themes and motifs that re-occur to the point that observers take note of their prominence.
• The data category names were reviewed by the research team and reworded to apply across multiple cases.
• Consensus for category naming was achieved.
• Categories were reviewed by an outside expert in the field.
• Data was reviewed for emerging patterns.
• Patterns were examined in the light of relevant theory and other research.
• An explanation of the findings was offered.
• The analysis related the results to the extant literature on the topic ( Berg, 2004, p. 285 ).

Data was triangulated in this study by collecting data from a variety of sources, such as semi-structured participant interviews, informal telephone conversations, and documents from the participants’ courses. Another form of triangulation occurred in the data analysis phase through the work of the members of the research team. As with all qualitative studies, the results took shape over time through an iterative process of examination of the data in search of commonalities, differences, and patterns.

The expert, the research team, and all of the participants examined the list of final categories and agreed that the themes that emerged from the data seemed to be true to their experience or understanding of the data. As one of the participants, Ken, stated, “Your themes certainly captured my experience. I couldn’t think of anything to add and didn’t see anything that didn’t, or couldn’t, resonate.” Another participant, Mark, remarked, “The themes look good to me.  As far as the issues I raised, I think you were accurate and complete.” Another, Neal, wrote, “I read the themes and I agree with the summary comments.  Well written, informative and factual. Thank you for asking me to participate in your research.”

The final report of this study took the form of a narrative account. Direct quotations gave voice to the individual participants, and gave the reader direct access to the participants’ words. In the reporting of results, important details were included to provide what Berg (2004) refers to as “thick data.” According to Berg, if well described, the findings “should not only fit the specific individual, group, or event studied but also generally provide understanding about similar individuals, groups, and events….Few human behaviors are unique, idiosyncratic, and spontaneous” ( Berg, 2004, p. 259 ).