 the substantive area (Corbin & * 148 Strauss, 2008) that applies to the data while being independent of it (Urquhart et al., 2010). Substantive theory in this study was based on an investigation of the philosophical assumptions about technology of Virginia educational technology leaders. Because the research broke new ground, a limitation o f the study is that as future qualitative studies are conducted in the substantive area, it may become necessary to modify the substantive theoiy to accommodate new data (Polit & Beck, 2008). Delimitations The researcher made the decision to delimit participants in the study to technology directors and instmctional technology specialists working in K-12 education, employed by school districts within Virginia. Virginia has been recognized as a national leader in K-12 educational technology (Coffman, 2009; Virginia Department of Education, 2010). Coffman (2009) commended forward thinking lawmakers and educational leaders in Virginia for implementing on a statewide basis funding for ITRT positions dedicated to providing leadership for technology integration. During purposive and theoretical sampling, the researcher did make an effort to seek out participants from different geographic areas of the state, from both city and county school districts, and both men and women. The first research question was open to broad philosophy of technology assumptions, and the interview protocol and questionnaire both began with open-ended icebreaker questions that invited participants to share philosophy of technology views in their own words. However, the researcher delimited the third research question to philosophy of technology assumptions characterized by technological determinism. This delimitation was made on the basis o f the study's research problem and theoretical 149 framework. Educational technology scholars have emphasized the importance of critically examining philosophy of technology assumptions such as technological determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al., 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Ethical Assurances Earlier in the discussion of the research method, it was articulated how grounded theory methodology seeks to reduce the impact of bias and subjectivity through the use of the memo technique, in which the researcher analyzes data, while reflecting on his or her own bias and assumptions, and those of participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Elliot & Lazenbatt, 2005; Luckerhoff & Guillemette, 2011). In considering
the substantive area (Corbin & * 148 Strauss, 2008) that applies to the data while being autonomous of it (Urquhart et al. , 2010). substantial theory in this study was free-base on an probe of the philosophical assumptions about technology of Virginia educational engineering leader. Because the research broke new ground, a limit o f the study is that as future qualitative report are conducted in the substantive area, it may become necessary to modify the substantive theoiy to accommodate fresh data (Polit & Beck, 2008). Delimitations The researcher name the decision to delimit participants in the study to engineering directors and instmctional engineering specialists working in K-12 education, employed by school district within Virginia. Virginia has been recognized as a national leader in K-12 educational technology (Coffman, 2009; Virginia Department of Education, 2010). Coffman (2009) commended forward thinking lawmakers and educational leaders in Virginia for implementing on a statewide basis funding for ITRT positions dedicated to providing leadership for technology integration. During goal-directed and theoretical sample distribution, the researcher did make an effort to search out participants from different geographic areas of the department of state, from both city and county school districts, and both men and women. The first inquiry question was open to broad philosophy of technology assumptions, and the interview protocol and questionnaire both began with open - ended icebreaker questions that invited participant to share doctrine of engineering view in their own words. However, the researcher delimited the third inquiry question to philosophy of technology assumptions characterized by technological determinism. This delimitation was made on the basis oxygen f the study's research problem and theoretical 149 framework. Educational technology scholar have emphasized the importance of critically analyze philosophy of engineering assumptions such as technological determinism (Carr - Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al. , 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Ethical Assurances sooner in the discussion of the research method, it was articulate how grounded hypothesis methodology seeks to reduce the impact of diagonal and subjectivity through the use of the memo technique, in which the researcher analyzes datum, while reflecting on his or her own bias and assumptions, and those of participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Elliot & Lazenbatt, 2005; Luckerhoff & Guillemette, 2011). In see
 thf substantive area (Corbik & * 148 Strauss, 2008) thcr applmes to fhe data while being independent of mt (Uequhaet et al., 2010). Substantive gheory in this stydy xas based on an mhvestigation kn the 'hilosophical axsumptions about technolmgh lf Virginia educational technology jeaders. Bfcause the resgarch froks new ground, a limitation o f the atudy iv that as futire qualitative studies arf cojducted in the subdtantive argz, ie may become vecessary uo modify thg substantive theoiy to accommodxte nzw data (Polut & Bfwk, 2008). Delimitetions The researcmvr made the devision to delikit paeticipants in the stuvy to technology dirgctors and iustmctional technologt wpecidlisds wuekivg jn K-12 educahioi, employed gy school dustricts within Virbigps. Virginia hzs beeg wecognized as a national leader in K-12 edlcatjonal technology (Coffmab, 2009; Virginia Departmenj of Educaeion, 2010). Coffman (2009) commended forward thinking lawmakess anv ddueqtionxo peaders in Virginia for implementing on a staeswodv basis funding fjr ITRT posotlomf dedicated tu provnsihg leadership for hechnoljgy ibtegratiog. Duting purposive and theoretixal sampling, rhe researcher did make an efyort tp seel out participants from difrerent geoggaphic arsxs of the state, wrok toth city and county schooj districvs, anb both mdn amd womqn. The firdt research question was open tm broad phllosophy of technology assumptions, and the injereief protocjl anc questionnaiwe both began cith opeu-ended icebreakeg questiois that invieed participatjs to share piilosophy of rechbology xkews in their pwn words. However, tye researcher delikitgd the third resecxcy question to pniluso[hj oh tecrtology assum[tiovs znaracgerized by becfnolpgical determinism. Tvis selimitation was msdc on the vasis o s the study's tesearch problem ajd thxoretiral 149 ftamgwork. Educational technology scgolars hage cmphasized thq imiortwnce of crntically examining philosophy of technoligy assumptions soch as technological beuerminism (Carc-Chellian, 2005; Fishar, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; KcDonald et al., 2005; M. Oliber, 2011; Paarsoj & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Ethical Assurances Earliwr in vhq discussioh of the geszareh methjd, iv xas articulated hpw grounded theory methodology reeks to rzduce the impact of bias and xucjectivity thtough the use of the memo fechniqur, in which the researcher analyaes data, while reflectinn on his ir hed own bias and assumptions, amd thove of particupanbs (Corbin & Strxusx, 2008; Elliot & Pazeibact, 2005; Luckerhoff & Guillemette, 2011). In cinsideeijg
the substantive area (Corbin & * 148 that to the while being independent 2010). theory in this was based on investigation of the philosophical assumptions about of Virginia educational technology leaders. Because the research broke new ground, a limitation f the study is that as future qualitative studies are conducted in the area, may necessary modify the substantive theoiy to accommodate new data (Polit & Beck, 2008). Delimitations The researcher made decision to delimit participants in the study to directors and instmctional technology working in K-12 education, employed school within Virginia. has recognized a national leader K-12 educational technology (Coffman, 2009; Virginia Department of Education, 2010). Coffman (2009) commended forward thinking lawmakers and leaders in implementing on statewide funding ITRT positions dedicated leadership for technology integration. During purposive the researcher did make an effort to seek participants from geographic areas of the state, from city and county school districts, and both men women. The first research question was open to broad philosophy of technology assumptions, and the and questionnaire both began open-ended icebreaker questions invited to philosophy technology views their own words. However, the researcher delimited the third research question philosophy of technology assumptions characterized by technological determinism. This delimitation on basis o f study's research problem and 149 Educational technology scholars have importance critically technology such technological determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; & Winegar, 2010; McDonald 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Ethical Assurances Earlier the discussion of the research method, it was articulated how grounded theory seeks to impact of bias and subjectivity through the use the memo technique, in the researcher analyzes data, while reflecting on his or own and assumptions, those of participants & Strauss, 2008; & Lazenbatt, 2005; Guillemette, 2011). considering
 the substantive area (Corbin & * 148 STrauss, 2008) that AppliEs tO thE dAta wHile Being independeNT of iT (Urquhart et al., 2010). SubstantiVe theOrY In thIS sTudy wAs based ON aN INveStIgAtiOn OF tHe phiLosOphical AssumptionS abOuT technology oF viRginia educAtiOnal technoloGy lEaders. beCauSE the rEseArch bRoke neW Ground, A limitatiOn O F the stUDy is thaT AS fUturE qualitative studiES aRE conducted in thE substAnTIvE ARea, It mAy become neCeSsary TO modify THe SUBStaNTive theoiy to aCcommodate nEW daTa (PoliT & BEck, 2008). dElimitAtionS THE reSearcher madE the Decision tO delimIT particIPants in The stuDy tO teChnoLOgY dIreCtORs aND iNstMCtiOnal techNoLoGy speCialISTS WorkIng In K-12 eDucatIon, employed by SchOol dIStrIcts wIthin virgInIa. VirGinia hAs beeN rEcognized as a natIonaL leader in k-12 edUcAtiOnAl tecHNology (cofFmaN, 2009; VirginIa DeparTMenT oF eDUcAtion, 2010). Coffman (2009) commenDeD FOrWard thinKing laWMaKeRS and educAtIonAl leADErs in virgINiA for implEmentiNG oN a StatewiDe Basis fUnDinG foR ITRT POsitIons deDicated tO provIDing leadership FOr technology iNTeGRAtIOn. DuRinG purposive aNd thEOretIcal SAmPliNG, the rEsearChER dID make an effort to seek OuT partiCipanTs from differeNt geographIC AReas of thE staTE, fROm both city and cOunty School distRIcts, and bOth meN and womeN. The first RESearch quEstIon Was OpeN TO bRoad philosophY OF tecHnOlogy asSumPtions, aNd tHe iNteRviEw Protocol aNd questiOnNaIrE bOth Began WIth open-eNdEd iCeBreAker qUEstionS that InviTeD pARtiCipants TO sHARe phIlOsOphy Of tEcHnoloGy viEWs iN their oWn words. HoWevER, the ReSeArcher dElimited the thIrD research qUeStiOn to phILOsophy of Technology assumptions chARacteriZed By tecHnolOgical detErmInism. THis DElimitAtion wAs madE oN thE BAsis o F THe StuDy'S research pROBleM and tHeOretIcal 149 fraMework. Educational tEChnOlogy scholars HavE empHASiZed THe IMpoRtANce OF Critically examiNing philosOpHY oF technologY AssUmPtions sUch as teChnolOGical deTerminism (carr-ChellMaN, 2005; FisHER, 2006; HoFmann, 2006; KanukA, 2008; Kritt & WiNegar, 2010; McDoNAld et AL., 2005; M. oliveR, 2011; PeArson & YOuNg, 2002; SMith, 2006; STrobel & tIllBerg-WEbb, 2009; SelWyN, 2010b). EthiCal AsSuRances EaRlier in the discussion of tHe reseArch mEthOd, it was arTicULatEd how grouNded Theory methOdoLogY seekS to REduce The iMPaCt oF Bias aNd suBJectivity THrOugH THe Use of the memO TEChnIque, iN whICh the rEseaRcher analyzes data, WHile reflecting On hiS OR heR owN Bias AnD assumptions, anD thOsE OF particiPaNts (Corbin & StRauss, 2008; EllIoT & lazenBatt, 2005; LuCkerhoFf & GuillEMEtTE, 2011). In conSideRinG
 the substantive area (Cor bin & * 14 8 Str aus s,20 08)that  applies to th e  dat a while being independ ent o fi t (U r qu hartet al., 20 1 0 ).Su bs tan ti v etheor y i n thisstudy wasbas ed  on an inves t ig ation of t hephilosophica l a ssumpt io nsa bouttec hnolo gy ofV irgini a educati on a l tech n ology l e a de rs.Because the resea r ch broke new grou nd, ali m it a t ion  of the stud yis th a t as fu t ur e q ual i tative studie s are condu c ted  in th esub s tantiv e are a, itmay becomenece ssary tomodify the sub s tantive  theoi y t o a ccom m od at e n ew dat a  ( Pol i t &  Beck, 2 00 8) . Del imit a t i o ns T herese arche r made the de cis iont o d elimi t par tici pa nts i n thestudy  t o technology di rect ors and i nst mc tio na l tec h nology  sp eci alistsworking inK- 1 2 ed ucation, employedby s ch ool dist rictsw it hi n  Virgini a.  Vi rgin i a  hasbeen re cognized  as an at io nal lea de r in K -1 2 e duc ation a l te chnolo gy (Coff man,2 009; VirginiaD epartment ofE du c a ti o n, 2 010 ). Coffman(200 9 ) co mmen d ed  fo r wardthink in g  l a wmakers and educati on al lea dersin Virginia f or impleme n t i ng on astat e wi d e basis fundin g for  ITRT posi t ions ded icate d to pro viding le a d ership f ortec hno log y in tegration. Du r i ng p ur posiveand  theore tic alsam pli ng , the res earcherdi dma ke  an  effo r t to see kout  p art icipa n ts fro m dif fere nt  g e ogr aphic a r ea s of t he  s tate , f ro m bot h ci t y a nd coun ty school  di s tric ts ,and bot h men and wom en . The firs tres earchq u estion w as open to broad philos o phy oftec hnolo gy a ssumption s,and th e i n tervie w prot ocolan d q u e stion n a ir e b ot h began wi t h  op en-en de d ic ebreake r questions that i n vit ed participan tsto s h a re  ph i lo s oph yo f t e c hnology views i n their ow nw or ds. Howeve r , t he  resear cher de limit e d the t hird rese arch ques ti on t o phi losophy of  technol ogy assum p tions ch aract eri zed by  t ech nolog ical d e ter minis m. Thi sdelimi tatio nwas made  on the basis o f the s tudy's  rese arc h problem  an d  th eoretical  149  framework . E duc ation alt echno logy sc hol a rs ha ve e m phasizedt he  im p o rt ance of cri t i c all y exa min i ng phi loso phy of technology assumptions su ch a s tec hno l ogic al  determinism ( Car r- C h ellman,20 05; Fisher,  2006; H of m ann,2006;Kanuka , 2008; K ri t t & Wi nega r,2010; McD ona ld et al.,  2 00 5 ; M. O live r,  2011;  Pears o n &Y o ung, 2002; Smith , 200 6 ;  Stro b el& Til lb erg-Web b , 20 09; Selwyn , 2010b). E thical  Ass uranc es Earl ie r in t hedi scussion o f  the rese archmethod,  i t wa s a rticul ated h ow gr ound ed  th eory meth o d ol o gy  s e eks  toreduc etheimpact of bias and  su b jectivi ty  th r o ugh th e  u s e  of the me motechn i q ue, in whi c h th e  r e searc her an alyzes  data,w hil ereflect ing o n his orher own b i asan d as sumption s,  and  t hos eof participants  (Corbin  & Strau s s , 2008 ; E l liot & Laze nb att, 2005; L ucker ho f f & Gui l l eme tte, 20 1 1).  In  co nsid eri ng
 the_substantive area_(Corbin & * 148_Strauss, 2008)_that_applies to_the_data while being_independent of it_(Urquhart et al., 2010)._Substantive theory in_this_study was based on an investigation of the philosophical assumptions about technology of Virginia_educational_technology leaders._Because_the_research broke new ground, a_limitation o f the study_is that_as future qualitative studies are conducted in the_substantive_area, it may_become necessary to modify the substantive theoiy to accommodate_new data (Polit & Beck, 2008)._Delimitations The researcher_made_the_decision to delimit participants_in the study to technology directors_and instmctional technology specialists working in_K-12 education, employed by school districts within_Virginia. Virginia has been recognized as_a national leader in K-12_educational technology_(Coffman, 2009; Virginia Department of_Education, 2010). Coffman_(2009) commended_forward thinking lawmakers_and educational leaders in Virginia for_implementing on a_statewide basis funding for ITRT positions_dedicated_to providing leadership_for_technology_integration. During_purposive and theoretical_sampling,_the researcher_did_make an effort to seek out_participants_from different geographic areas of the state,_from both city and_county_school districts, and both_men and women. The first_research question was open to broad_philosophy of_technology assumptions,_and the interview protocol and questionnaire both began with open-ended icebreaker_questions that invited participants to share_philosophy of technology views_in their_own_words. However, the_researcher_delimited the_third research question to philosophy of technology_assumptions characterized_by technological determinism. This delimitation was_made on the basis_o_f the study's research problem and_theoretical 149 framework. Educational technology scholars_have emphasized the importance of_critically_examining_philosophy of technology assumptions such_as technological determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Fisher,_2006; Hofmann, 2006;_Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald_et_al., 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson_&_Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel &_Tillberg-Webb,_2009;_Selwyn, 2010b). Ethical Assurances Earlier_in the discussion of the research_method, it was articulated how grounded theory methodology seeks_to reduce the_impact of bias and subjectivity_through_the_use of the memo technique, in which the researcher analyzes_data, while_reflecting on his_or her own bias and assumptions, and those of participants_(Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Elliot & Lazenbatt,_2005; Luckerhoff & Guillemette, 2011). In considering