Participants

Part of the methodology chapter - this part may be ok.

3.5 Participants

I used my own networks to identify potential participants in the study. This approach to sampling is known as snowball sampling (Patton, 2002) and is discussed in more detail below. First, I approached teenagers I knew with a view to identify potential participants who vary in gender, socio-economic status, and schools they attend (i.e. public, private). From there, I asked other acquaintances to help me contact participants who demonstrate technological expertise.

3.5.1 Snowball Sampling

Participants were selected through what is known as snowball sampling (Patton, 2002) where participants recommended others who fitted certain criteria, and who were beyond the range of people who I know personally. Initially, I asked my acquaintances if they knew of anyone who them deemed to be a teenaged, technological expert.

As my aims do not include obtaining a representative sample, it was fitting that I used this form of purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002), where information-rich cases are selected for in-depth study. Patton (2002) described this approach as a strategy whereby, “cases for study (e.g., people, organizations, communities, cultures, events, critical incidences) [sic] are selected because they are “information rich” and illuminative, that is, they offer useful manifestations of the phenomenon of interest; sampling, then, is aimed at insight about the phenomenon, not empirical generalization from a sample to a population” (p. 40). Therefore, in light of the aims of this study, this type of sampling is appropriate, especially as the selection of illuminative case studies stems from my desire to choose case studies from which the most learning can occur (Patton, 2002).

I have two stepdaughters (aged 18 and 13) and my first official meeting was with them to find out what they thought experts were and if they could recommend anyone who they considered to be a teenage technological expert. My stepdaughters were unable to suggest anyone whom they really thought was an expert, and was also a teenager. It was a positive start to the fieldwork as I was excited about beginning the project and nervous about asking the initial questions. My stepdaughters were excited as well and pleased to be involved, and though it was not an auspicious beginning, starting with family was a comfortable and safe place to begin.

Next, I asked a friend of mine if I could speak with her two daughters (aged 14 and 11). The elder one suggested Jake. I asked her to get in touch with him to see if he would be happy for me to contact him. This happened and I met with Jake about a month later.

One afternoon, some friends of ours visited our home, and we got to talk about Charli who was with my youngest stepdaughter in another room, whom her parents considered to be a computer expert. I immediately leaped out of the room to go and talk to Charli and give her a plain language statement, consent form, and asked her to think about participating. After giving her a week or so to think it over, I rang her mother and then spoke to her, after which she agreed to participate.

My next meeting was with my husband’s work colleague’s stepdaughter (aged 14). I emailed the father and arranged to meet with the daughter. She was unable to suggest anyone whom she knew well enough to speak with first before I contacted them.

As I was teaching guitar part-time, I asked five of my teenage guitar students if they knew of anyone whom they could recommend as a teenage technological expert. These proved fruitful as a one boy recommended his friend Chris and another boy recommended his friend Joe.

When I was at my tennis club one Saturday afternoon, one of the other players asked me what my PhD was on. I replied, “teenage technological experts”, and then he related that he had four of them – his sons. This led to finding Tom, one of the four brothers. Two were ineligible to participate, and the youngest one declined to participate.

Charli and Tom were able to suggest two more possible participants – Lisa and Tim.

The last participant Anne was found through a former teaching acquaintance who has had a lot to do with young adolescents interested in computers. The teacher recommended Anne, and through contact with her younger sister, I was able to meet with Anne and inform her of what the project involved.

With each of these initial contacts, who were not actual participants, I kept a list of what they considered to be an expert, i.e. the descriptors they gave of a technological expert. I did not audiotape these initial meetings. I did not ask my guitar students what they thought was a technological expert as I focused on teaching them guitar, and not taking up their time that they had paid for with my research.

With each participant, I stated and reiterated that they were under no compulsion to participate, and I believe that I did not coerce any of the participants to be involved. I thanked each one of the initial contacts for their involvement and for their contribution, and stressed their anonymity, especially as they were not actual participants.