Analysis of data

After the interviews were transcribed by the research assistant, the transcribed interviews were coded according the main themes. After that, the themes were divided into categories and sub-categories which cover the areas discussed in theoretical framework and the data was coded accordingly. In the coding process, some additional themes were used which were not directly reflected in the issues discussed in theoretical framework. This was done in order to get a complete picture about the way that the evaluation took place in this particular case reality and in order to avoid loosing any relevant information linked to the evaluation process of relationship quality. Thus, all the relevant information concerning the evaluation process was coded and used in further analysis. Although the theoretical framework was used as an aid in coding the data, the data was given the opportunity to ”speak” and the framework mainly served as a support tool in the coding process (see Eskola and Suoranta 1998, p. 82, theory as a tool). Table 2 illustrates how the data was coded and interpreted into theoretical concept.

Table 2. From data to concept, an example.

STATEMENT SUB-CATEGORY CATEGORY CONCEPT "The agreed fixed times Comparison Comparison Comparison are followed very closely standard standard every year” used in episode quality evaluation

The data analysis in this particular research was easier than what was anticipated. The statements that the interviewees made were, in most cases, quite clear and thus easy to code into categories and sub-categories. The data once coded into the categories and sub-categories was further analyzed, in order to see that the content of data in the category or sub- category was unified, and to see if additional categories were needed. The theoretical analysis of concepts which clarified the content and nature of different concepts supported the analysis of data. Consequently, it was quite easy for the researcher, in many cases, to find the category the statements belong because the theoretical analysis gave a clear picture about the content and the relationships of concepts.

This method of doing analysis naturally has its dangers; data is easily coded according to researcher’s first impression and the other possible interpretations are not thoroughly considered. In order to avoid this kind of mistake the statements were read, interpreted and re-coded (if needed) several times. As the amount of interviews and other forms of data (i.e. discussions) was limited, the coding and interpretation processes were done manually.

As mentioned, part of data did not fit the original categories made on the basis of the theoretical framework and was therefor coded into categories according their nature. Also, all of the concepts did not gain any empirical support, and were not supported55 by the data retrieved from this particular case by this particular method. Again, not all of the categories linked to a particular concept gain any empirical support, i.e. the theoretical concept was only partly supported. The fact that not all the concepts were supported can support for the approach of the case study in this research. As mentioned, the case study presents an instrumental case study, in which the aim is not making generalizations, but provide an insight to the studied issue (Stake 1994, p. 243, see also Eskola and Suoranta 1998, p. 65-67). Also, as the framework of relationship quality evaluation can be regarded as being quite comprehensive, it can not be assumed that all the concepts of the framework could be supported by one empirical case.

Taking together tables 1 and 2, we can see a circle which starts from the theoretical concept and ends to the (possibly) redefined concept. This circle shows the ideal way of data supporting the existing theoretical concept. In reality, this was not always the case. For example, in the case of the third evaluation the framework did not get any support from the empirical case.

55 _{Although I am frequently using the word ”support” it has here a different connotation} than in quantitative research. In quantitative research the hypothesis set are either supported or not supported by the empirical research. In this (qualitative) research supporting means that a particular theoretical device (in this case category or concept) is mentioned in statements provided by the interviewees in this particular empirical case.

In addition, it has to be noticed that the theoretical framework did not cover all the aspects available from the empirical data. Thus, in order to include all the relevant data new categories were built. These particular categories were build up according to the needs created by the empirical data and they did not have a pre-constructed theoretical base. For example, technical standards as a comparison standard used in episode quality evaluation did not form a separate comparison standard category based on the theory. The reasons for the need to create new categories can be found in the role of theoretical and empirical studies in this research. As the aim of the theoretical analysis, is to create a framework for the evaluation of relationship quality, the empirical research mainly facilitates this framework.