{"id":9914,"date":"2020-07-30T20:48:52","date_gmt":"2020-07-30T20:48:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2020-12-16T11:54:26","modified_gmt":"2020-12-16T11:54:26","slug":"instagramming-their-hearts-out-what-do-edu-influencers-share-on-instagram","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-20\/issue-3-20\/general\/instagramming-their-hearts-out-what-do-edu-influencers-share-on-instagram","title":{"rendered":"Instagramming Their Hearts Out: What Do Edu-Influencers Share on Instagram?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
A New York Times<\/em> article recently asserted, \u201cAs social media expands its cultural dominance, the people who can steer the online conversation will have the upper hand\u201d (Roose, 2019, p. 1). The kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12) niche is no exception, with emerging \u201cedu-influencers\u201d steering the online conversation around teaching and learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instagram has emerged as a popular social media site among teachers (Collins, 2019; Rozen, 2018), but scholarly investigation around teachers and this platform has been limited (however, see preliminary work from Carpenter et al., 2019, and Engman et al., 2019). To address this gap, the current study explored the nature of the messages K-12 influencers have shared with teacher audiences on Instagram. Findings will be useful for teacher educators and school leaders seeking to understand the social media messaging today\u2019s teachers consume and will inform opinions about Instagram\u2019s influence on teachers\u2019 professional perspectives and practices. Such knowledge will help these stakeholders understand how to support teachers\u2019 critical use of social media for professional purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We define \u201cedu-influencers\u201d as individuals who have achieved microcelebrity status in spaces such as Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Pinterest, and TeachersPayTeachers.com (TpT) by promoting certain education-related products, philosophies, or practices (Engman et al., 2019; LaGarde, 2019; Roose, 2019; Rozen, 2018). Edu-influencers stand to play a fascinating role in teachers\u2019 professional learning networks (PLNs; Trust et al., 2016). On one hand, edu-influencers may share useful resources and examples of classroom practice, facilitate teacher networking, or even expose teachers to new ideas around social justice and equity. In an era of standardization and low teacher morale (Apple, 2013; Hursh, 2007; Sugrue, 2019), edu-influencers may present an opportunity to celebrate teachers\u2019 diverse stories and the fun that can happen in classrooms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, edu-influencers may promote products simply for the sake of sponsorship that may reinforce the status-quo, or worse, proliferate practices that are ineffective or harmful (Carpenter & Harvey, 2019). Influencers may perpetuate (or exacerbate) a culture that values individual superstars, superficiality, self-promotion, and capitalism (Stokel-Walker, 2019), ideals that may conflict with the notion of teaching as a democratic, moral, and collaborative profession (Bullough & Rosenberg, 2018; Goodlad et al., 1990).<\/p>\n\n\n\n We explored these issues qualitatively, investigating a single group of edu-influencers as an interesting case: Teach Your Heart Out\u2122 (TYHO). Founded by two Georgia educators, TYHO was a popular, racially diverse collaborative of 20 or so edu-influencers with the expressed mission to provide professional development and inspiration for teachers (TYHO, n.d.). The collaborative hosted several conferences for teachers each year, some taking place on cruise ships, advertised as \u201cprofessional development at sea\u201d (TYHO, n.d.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n TYHO was among a growing group of educator-created professional development brands such as Get Your Teach On. Given the rising popularity of these collaboratives, and the issue that many teachers spend personal funds on their conferences and resources, we wondered what messages these branded entities shared. We selected TYHO as a sample population because its influencers represented a popular, established, and clearly delineated group from which to draw participants, rather than cherry picking edu-influencers from Instagram at large. TYHO\u2019s influencers attracted our interest because they (a) represented a racially diverse group of educators, (b) were actively involved in K-12 schools as teachers, administrators, and professional developers, (c) were popular among teacher followers (most had amassed tens of thousands of followers on Instagram), and (d) had robust participation on the platform (Instagram, 2019). This study sought to answer the following research questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study was informed by literature spanning the topics of the Teacher-to-Teacher Online Marketplace of Ideas (TOMI), teacher leadership, and influencer culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In recent years, teachers have begun to use online resources for classroom inspiration and professional support (Carpenter et al., 2019; Hertel & Wessman-Enzinger, 2017; Kaminsi & Sloutsky, 2020; Opfer et al., 2016; Sawyer, et al., 2019; Shapiro et al., 2019). Sawyer et al. (2019) demonstrated that preservice teachers turn to the internet for lesson planning, almost as often as they turn to a cooperating teacher and more than they consult university faculty member or friends and family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other evidence suggests that Instagram, in particular, has gained momentum. Kaminski and Sloutsky (2020) surveyed 413 US K-4 teachers, finding that 25% had used Instagram for teaching and 35% had not used but would consider using the platform. Moreover, Carpenter et al. (2019) surveyed over 800 teachers via social media, finding that 91% used Instagram professionally, most often to gain new ideas and to learn from educators on the site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We introduce the term, Teacher-to-Teacher Online Marketplace of Ideas (TOMI), to describe the online spaces where teachers exchange classroom resources and ideas, including educational marketplaces such as TpT or Ignite.Amazon.com, social media sites such as Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook, or YouTube, subscription sites such as Patreon, and educators\u2019 individual blogs or websites. In these spaces, content creators self-publish their ideas and materials for free or for profit. Many (but not all) of the content creators within the TOMI are current or former classroom teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Barriers to join the TOMI are low (simply create a free account in most cases), so participants may bypass traditional gatekeepers, meaning there is potentially a more equitable opportunity for teachers to lead in these spaces. However, content on the TOMI is not formally monitored through a substantive peer or expert review process (Hunter & Hall, 2018; Sawyer et al., 2019) and author credentials may be difficult to verify. Consequently, the quality of content on the TOMI may be inconsistent or unreliable. Alternatively, the lack of regulation may offer an opportunity for new, innovative ideas to be shared easily and widely. Teachers are empowered as the creators and curators of content on the TOMI, challenging existing power hierarchies limiting what is taught in classrooms today. Either way, as new generations of highly networked, online-savvy teachers join the profession and as teachers continue to connect more in online networks (Trust et al., 2016), teachers are drawn to the TOMI for classroom inspiration and support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other scholars have referred to the TOMI using a variety of terms, including Sites of Curriculum Sharing (Gallagher et al., 2019), the Supplemental Curriculum Bazaar (Polikoff & Dean, 2019), and Virtual Resource Pools (Hu et al., 2018). Each of these terms seems insufficient to describe what occurs on these sites. First, teachers are not exclusively \u201csharing\u201d resources on these sites \u2014 they buy, sell, borrow, and share. Additionally, the curriculum found on these sites is not exclusively \u201csupplemental.\u201d Research has shown that some teachers had assembled their entire curriculum from TOMI sites (Pittard, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last, we identified a need for a more specific term that acknowledged the unvetted nature of these sites and its focus on teachers. Instead, TOMI conveys the largely teacher-to-teacher aspect of this new phenomenon (and thus its lack of outside expert vetting), its capitalist nature, and the acknowledgment that teachers are not purely gaining tangible materials through these sites, but also ideas and inspiration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the TOMI grows in scope and influence (e.g., Opfer et al., 2016), the educators who create content for this space may be emerging as teacher leaders (Shelton & Archambault, 2019, 2020). Often teacher leadership has been defined as, \u201cteachers who maintain K\u201312 classroom-based teaching responsibilities, while also taking on leadership responsibilities outside of the classroom\u201d (Wenner & Campbell, 2017, p. 7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A recent meta-analysis concluded that teacher leaders can be effective peer coaches who (a) help their teacher peers discover and practice new strategies to benefit students and (b) guide teachers to enact curricula with fidelity (Kraft et al., 2018). Much of the discussion surrounding teacher leadership assumes that teacher leaders\u2019 provided mentorship is positive and effective. Critiques exist, however, in that it may be \u201cpresumptuous to think that teachers intuitively know how to lead their colleagues or schools without any focused support\u201d (Wenner & Campbell, 2016, p. 3). Thus, the TOMI\u2019s<\/em> teacher leaders could encourage teachers to adopt trite approaches, untrue ideas, and marginalizing practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Teacher leaders have found wider audiences with the advent of the TOMI (Engman et al., 2019; Shelton & Archambault, 2019, 2020; Trust et al., 2016). Since its inception in 2010, Instagram has become a popular venue for so-called online teacherpreneurs \u2014 the individuals who market their classroom materials on virtual marketplaces like TpT (Shelton & Archambault, 2018). In recent work examining the perspectives of online teacherpreneurs (Shelton & Archambault, 2019, 2020), we found that these influencers view themselves as virtual mentors for the teachers who use their materials and ideas. Teacherpreneurs reported that they shared resources rooted in research-based practices and were intentional about designing classroom materials that supported learners of diverse linguistic, cultural, and economic backgrounds, although it is unclear if teachers themselves are intentional about their use of these materials to support diverse learners (Schroeder et al., 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other preliminary work by Engman et al. (2019) explored the Instagram accounts of 20 edu-influencers, each with over 50,000 followers. They found that Instagram edu-influencers depicted themselves as both designers and entrepreneurs, sharing images that showcased their ability to design learning materials and learning environments along with photos that promoted original teaching products they sold online. However, Carpenter and Harvey (2019) found that teachers reported frustration with the for-profit entities that clouded their professional social media activity. Additionally, Pittard (2017) noted that teacherpreneurs may perpetuate unrealistic or inaccurate ideals of good teaching. In sum, existing evidence suggests the participatory affordances of spaces like Instagram offer a new opportunity for teachers to amplify their voices as leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While we position edu-influencers on Instagram and other sites of the TOMI as potential teacher leaders, edu-influencers can be understood as part of a larger influencer culture fueled by social media. Influencer culture can be understood, in part, as microcelebrity or social media celebrity (Hou, 2018). Microcelebrity, Marwick and boyd (2011) explained, \u201ccan be understood as a mindset and set of practices in which audience is viewed as a fan base; popularity is maintained through ongoing fan management; and self-presentation is carefully constructed to be consumed by others\u201d (p. 140).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crafted by the microcelebrity or influencer, celebrity on social media is a practice that is learned (Marwick & boyd, 2011) and supported by self-branding, or the practice by which individuals create a distinct image of themselves for social and financial gains (Khamis et al., 2016). Through both self-branding and social media, individuals are able to transform themselves into \u201chomegrown…stars\u201d (Hou, 2018, p. 535) who avoid \u201cthe gatekeeper role of media and entertainment industries\u201d (p. 535; see also Turner, 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, the internet makes possible a larger \u201cpool of potential celebrities\u201d in that with \u201ca computer and a bit of moxie…you\u2019ve got a shot\u201d (Gamson, 2011, p. 1065). With that shot, too, comes opportunities for aligning one\u2019s self-made brand to actual brands and sponsoring their products, thereby enabling influencers or social media celebrities to bring home financial gains from their social media presence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Social media celebrity and microcelebrity have been characterized by a number of features. According to Hou (2018), social media celebrity can be defined by \u201cStaged authenticity, managed connectedness with audience, the abundance of celebrity figures, and the cultural preoccupation with self-sufficient uniqueness\u201d (p. 534). Microcelebrity, similarly, relies on a \u201cperformance of ordinariness, intimacy, and equality\u201d with the audience (p. 536).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Microcelebrities, as otherwise \u201cunexceptional people\u201d (Gamson, 2011, p. 1062), focus on the seemingly mundane aspects of life that we all share and, in doing so, perform authenticity. This performance is necessarily a construction, as the self-branding that contributes to a microcelebrity\u2019s rise \u201ccreates a highly curated and often abridged snapshot of how they want to be seen\u201d (Khamis et al., 2016, p. 6). Despite the highly constructed nature of their online presence, microcelebrities tend to promote a form of intimacy with their audiences in order to reap the monetary rewards of that form of sharing (Raun, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n To date, empirical studies of transgender influencers (Raun, 2018), beauty-vloggers (Hou, 2018), and food-bloggers (Khamis et al., 2016) have been conducted to shed light on microcelebrity influencer culture via social media. However, limited empirical investigation of influencers within the K-12 education niche has been reported (but see Engman et al., 2019 for emerging evidence). Considering the rise of the TOMI, online teacherpreneurs, and edu-influencers, empirical study of this niche group is necessary to shed light on the content produced by teacher microcelebrities. Therefore, in the current study we pursued an initial investigation into edu-influencers, asking,what do TYHO edu-influencers share on Instagram and what are the implications of those messages? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Participants included all 18 presenters listed in TYHO\u2019s most recently published conference guides (the 2019 Bahamas conference and the 2018 San Antonio conference), with publicly accessible Instagram accounts. We purposefully selected TYHO as a population for several reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, TYHO influencers appeared more diverse than the U.S. teacher population, which was 80% white and 77% female (National Council of Educational Statistics, 2016). TYHO participants included 12 women (66.7%) and six men (33.3%) and represented diverse ethnicities and races. We understood TYHO\u2019s diversity to be an asset, positioning marginalized communities and individuals as knowledgeable within the digital space (Mills et al., 2018). Second, all TYHO influencers were actively involved in K-12 schools, with roles ranging from classroom teachers, educational consultants, administrators, professional developers, and motivational speakers. Third, TYHO influencers were popular among teacher audiences. At the start of the study, participants\u2019 total number of Instagram followers ranged from 159 to 302,000, with an average of 73,996 followers and a median of 54,350 followers. Fourth, TYHO influencers\u2019 Instagram participation was robust, with many posting to the platform daily, yielding a hearty data set. Participant characteristics were summarized in Table 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1 Additionally, we purposefully selected five of the 18 participants for further observation of their Instagram stories in addition to posts. We selected them using maximum variation sampling so they varied on factors including gender, ethnicity and race, geographical location, and current employment in K-12 schools. The maximum variation approach enabled us to understand how Instagram stories were used among a diverse range of TYHO influencers (as suggested by Teddlie & Tashakori, 2009). We also used intensity sampling to select individuals who had particularly robust Instagram participation. Four of the selected participants had between 56,000 and 300,000 Instagram followers and posted to the social media platform regularly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We added a fifth participant with fewer followers because she was particularly active, posting stories on a daily basis. She also grew in followers at the highest rate across all participants over the course of the study indicating that her participation was indeed robust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This qualitative study employed observational methods. Across a 4-week period during the back-to-school season in August and September 2019, we observed Instagram posts and stories shared by the 18 participants. We selected the back-to-school period because we were interested in what content influencers shared during this time when teachers set intentions and goals for the new year. Some followers had participated in TYHO\u2019s in-person professional development conferences that summer, so we were curious as to what content they continued to consume from the TYHO social media output going into the school year. Over the course of the data collection period, two participants did not share any posts or stories, so our findings apply to the 16 individuals who did<\/em> participate during the observation period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instagram posts are photos or videos accompanied by a written caption shared for others to view (Instagram, 2019). Over the 4-week study, 310 posts were shared with participants, posting an average of 0.62 times per day, with a range of 0-6 posts daily. They shared an average of 17.2 posts, with a range of 0-35 posts. Our observations of posts included the visuals (static images or video) and written captions for each post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instagram stories are photos or videos available to view for only 24-hours. Stories do not include a written caption but may include text, stickers, or links on top of the photo or video. We followed the stories of five participants over the study, observing 115 stories in total. To ensure we captured all stories, each researcher systematically viewed stories at the same time daily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stories were shared over an average of 22.2 days (80% of the observation period), with a range of 15-28 days. The duration of video and amount of images shared as a story by each participant in a given day varied. Our observations of stories included observing the visuals, reading any written content provided, and visiting any linked websites. Frequency of posts and stories by participants are included in Table 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2<\/strong> Several validation strategies were used to increase the credibility of our observations. First, over the course of the study all three researchers observed TYHO participants\u2019 Instagram participation daily, in an immersive fashion, such that TYHO Instagram became a natural part of our personal social media rituals. This heightened level of engagement enabled us to gain \u201ca credible account by building a tight and holistic case\u201d (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p. 127).<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a second validation strategy, we employed collective researcher reflections. We held weekly researcher meetings where we shared, pondered, consolidated, and synthesized our observations to make sense of the data. 4 four weeks of active observations, we determined that we had reached saturation, as we were confident that we understood the messages TYHO Instagrammers shared and we were not seeing new or different concepts presented (as in Tracy, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n We followed Bruckman\u2019s (2002) ethical guidelines for data collected in human subjects research on the internet. We, along with our respective Institutional Review Boards, determined data in this study were published <\/em>works, available in Instagram\u2019s public archive, so consent was not needed to access them. With this understanding, we opted to observe, rather than archive, participants\u2019 Instagram posts and stories, understanding these publications as TYHO influencers\u2019 intellectual property. Further, internet users who publish to public spaces should be protected, but also deserve credit for their intellectual work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We carefully balanced risks and benefits relating to participant anonymity versus ensuring accurate reporting in the study (Bruckman, 2002). For example, we opted to identify the group TYHO, but concealed participants by numbers, not pseudonyms, presented the sample\u2019s gender demographics as an aggregate, and did not report demographics on participants\u2019 race because that would have necessitated researcher identification, which is an unethical practice (American Psychological Association, 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once data collection concluded, we coded all 310 posts and 115 stories using first cycle and second cycle coding methods (Miles et al., 2014). Our goal was to identify concepts inductively that were conveyed in each post or story, while also considering the a priori themes of design and entrepreneurship that Engman et al. (2019) found across their exploratory analysis of edu-influencers\u2019 Instagram posts. Each author independently coded one third of the data, creating a table of potential codes, along with a definition and example post\/story for each. As we coded, we considered each post or story as an entity, comprised of the image\/video and caption taken together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To illustrate, consider Participant 1\u2019s post and subsequent coding (Figure 1). In the first cycle, we labeled this post with the following codes: shout-outs, emojis, hashtags, promoting products, and advocating for curriculum\/approach. In second cycle coding, we added promoting one\u2019s own product, soliciting engagement through shout-outs, and advocating for a curricular approach in the absence of a thoughtful rationale. Ultimately, this post illustrated three of the four themes discussed in the results: promotion, soliciting engagement, and advocating for a curricular approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 1<\/strong>Literature Review<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
TOMI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Teacher Leadership Goes Virtual<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Influencer Culture<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Method<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Participants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/strong>Participant Characteristics<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\t \nParticipant<\/th> Number of Followers at Start of Study<\/th> Location by U.S. Census Region<\/th> Description<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n\t <\/td> Stories and Posts Participants<\/strong> <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 1<\/td> 131,000<\/td> West<\/td> Former elementary teacher, TpT seller, YouTube vlogger, TYHO co-founder<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 2<\/td> 129,000<\/td> South<\/td> Elementary teacher, TpT seller<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 3<\/td> 69,500<\/td> South<\/td> Elementary teacher, Scholastic blogger<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 4<\/td> 56,100<\/td> Northeast<\/td> Elementary teacher, TpT seller<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 5<\/td> 5,743<\/td> Midwest<\/td> Middle school teacher, motivational speaker<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t <\/td> Posts Participants<\/strong> <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 6<\/td> 302,000<\/td> South<\/td> Elementary administrator, YouTube vlogger<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 7<\/td> 195,000<\/td> West<\/td> Elementary teacher, blogger, TpT seller<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 8<\/td> 159,000<\/td> Midwest<\/td> Elementary teacher, TpT seller<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 9<\/td> 151,000<\/td> West<\/td> Elementary teacher, TpT seller<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 10<\/td> 63,900<\/td> South<\/td> Part-time secondary teacher, motivational speaker, \u201cEd-trepreneur\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 11<\/td> 52,600<\/td> Northeast<\/td> Elementary teacher, TpT seller<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 12<\/td> 5,436<\/td> South<\/td> Elementary teacher, Harvard fellow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 13<\/td> 3,736<\/td> Midwest<\/td> Elementary teacher, Scholastic blogger<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 14<\/td> 3,642<\/td> South<\/td> Early childhood teacher, runner-up state teacher of the year<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 15<\/td> 2,280<\/td> South<\/td> STEM district coordinator, State teacher of the year<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 16<\/td> 1,161<\/td> South<\/td> Instructional coach, blogger, TpT seller<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 17<\/td> 662<\/td> South<\/td> Elementary administrator, blogger, podcaster<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 18<\/td> 165<\/td> South<\/td> Middle school teacher, State teacher of the year<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n Data Sources and Collection<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Posts<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Stories<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Frequency of Posts and Stories by Participants<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\t Participant<\/strong><\/th> Frequency of Posts<\/strong><\/th> Frequency of Days With Stories <\/strong> <\/th> Average Post Frequency by Day<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n\t <\/td> Stories and Posts Participants<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 1<\/td> 29<\/td> 21<\/td> 1.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 2<\/td> 29<\/td> 23<\/td> 1.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 3<\/td> 7<\/td> 15<\/td> 0.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 4<\/td> 33<\/td> 28<\/td> 1.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 5<\/td> 29<\/td> 24<\/td> 1.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t \u00a0<\/td> Posts Participants<\/strong> <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 6<\/td> 26<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 7<\/td> 25<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 8<\/td> 5<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 9<\/td> 3<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 10<\/td> 27<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 1.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 11<\/td> 18<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 12<\/td> 13<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 13<\/td> 5<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 14<\/td> 35<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 1.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 15<\/td> 0<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 16<\/td> 12<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 17<\/td> 14<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t 18<\/td> 0<\/td> \u00a0<\/td> 0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n Qualitative Validation Strategies<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Ethical Considerations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Analysis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Participant 1\u2019s Post<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n