Initially when the data gathering by the participants was to take place over an extended period, one of the advantages this offered was that they could begin the process of coding independently of me. The photos were to be uploaded to a restricted area of our learning platform to which only they and I would have access. The storage area provides the functionality to be able to add metadata to the images including 'tags' and description. So the intention was that after uploading all the images they would first perform a 'winnowing' process, discarding ones they thought inappropriate; not deleting them, but placing them in an archive should the need arise to re-examine them.
The next step was to be adding a tag (or more than one) and a description to set the scene or provide some background context. In effect this is having the participants begin the process of coding (adding tags), together with brief memos (descriptions). Glaser (1998) and Corbin & Strauss (1990) refer to this phase of the research as 'open coding' and whilst the memos might not constitute 'theoretical' memos, they may assist in building categories, subsequent theorising or later theoretical sampling. The storage area also provided the facility for creation of 'folders' so that images with common attributes could be grouped. In addition, as the 'coding' progressed, the tools would enable participants to view and comment on each other's images, thereby influencing and perhaps refining each other's thinking.
Despite grand aspirations, after only a brief initial attempt, the participants did not continue with this process; they simply found it too time-consuming.