Due to the large size of the groups studied in this research it was not possible to collect data from the entire population; therefore a sample was selected. Henry (1990) argues that sampling gives better overall accuracy than completing a census and Sanders et al. (2009) suggest that fewer cases means that the information collected can be more detailed as there is more time to be
spent on the processes of collecting and analysis. A sample can capture the composition of a population and its range of views.
Due to the interpretative nature of the study non-probability sampling was used. This sampling can be used to create generalizations about a population but not statistical inferences about an entire population (Saunders 2009). Marshall (1996, p. 524) suggests that the purpose of qualitative research, by means of sampling, was to gain an ‘improved understanding of complex human issues is more important than generalizability of results’. Purposeful sampling was selected to create the population to be interviewed. This was necessary because the criteria for participation were very specific; the individual needed to belong to one of the groups, be active on Facebook and/or Twitter and log in every day. Purposeful sampling also allows for the data to achieve representativeness or typicality of the settings, individuals, or activities selected (Byrne 2001); and in the small sample selected the ‘homogeneity provides more confidence that the conclusions adequately represent the average members of the population than does a sample of the same size that incorporates substantial random or accidental variation’ (Maxwell 1998, p.
235). There was also an element of snowball sampling with the Stay-at-home Parents in order to identify relevant participants. Purposeful sampling is used in multi-case qualitative studies where it can highlight differences in settings and individuals (Maxwell 2002).
The decisions around sampling took into account the research design and how feasible it would be to generate the data, the analysis, and validity (Bickman & Rog 2008). The sampling was consistent with the purposive nature indicated by Guba and Lincoln (1989) and Patton (1990), and included a representative range of Academics, Stay-at-home Parents and Business Executives.
Participants were recruited through the business, academic and social contacts of the researcher.
Emails, phone calls, Tweets and Facebook status updates were used to find participants who were already engaged in the use of these Social Media tools and fitted the group criteria. The requests were sent to online networks and to ‘friends of friends’ and followers. The group criteria influenced the type of person that responded. Not all of the individuals were personally known by the researcher so this limited the likelihood that the participants were predetermined to ‘impress’ the researcher.
Each group is represented in the study and meets the criteria of the participant profile. All participants were aged between 30 and 70 years old (Table 4.3). Each participant was a regular user of Facebook or Twitter, meaning that they signed in every day. The participants identified themselves as belonging to one of the groups and were questioned based on this selection. Each group was represented in the three phases of data generation. The in-depth semi-structured interviews took place with nine to eleven adults per group with the total number interviewed at 30. The decision to cap the number of interviewees at 30 was due to time limitations and the point where data was being repeated (saturation point). The observational data was collected initially from all 30 participants by looking at their profile/s. Then the second observational phase was concentrated on the Stay-at-home Parents where four mothers were followed for three months each.
Table 4.3: Participant profiles
Group Male Female Age 30-39 Age 40-49 Age 50-49 Age 60+
Academics 4 6 3 4 1 2
Stay-at-home Parents 1 10 8 3
Business Executives 5 4 4 5
Total 10 20 15 12 1 2
The Academics and Business Executives have fair gender representations while the home Parents are mostly women. This represents the societal gender split with most Stay-at-home Parents being mothers (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009).
The participants are well educated. The table below (Table 4.4) represents the highest education standard showing the highest level of education. Only 10% of participants do not hold a University degree while 60% had a post graduate qualification.
Table 4.4: Education level of participants
Group VCE Diploma Degree Post
Grad
Masters Enrolled in PhD
PhD
Academics 1 2 2 5
Stay-at-home Parents 1 2 5 2 1
Business Executives 4 1 3 1
Total 1 2 9 4 6 3 5
The following table (Table 4.5) shows the names of the participants for each group. Their names and those of their children have been changed or blocked out to protect the identity of individuals.
Table 4.5: Names of participants
Academics (10) Stay-at-home Parents (11) Business Executives (9) Tomasz
The analysis framework for this study was guided by the work of Klein and Myers (1999, p. 72) with their principles for Interpretive field research. Ethnographic studies can be done by way of case studies or field studies and, in this instance, the field was Facebook and Twitter. The following principles were used to steer the analysis:
1. the hermeneutic circle (guiding principle) simultaneously with data collection, allowing the researcher to progressively focus their interviews and observations, and to decide how to test the emerging conclusions. In this instance the analysis and data collection were done in hermeneutic circles to gain the best results