Analysis of data

All data generated from the 20 interviews was analysed using the grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). which is described by Strauss and Corbin (1990) as a “systematic set of procedures to develop inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon”

(1990:24). Grounded theory was first introduced by Glaser and Strauss in the early 1960s following their sociological research which explored dying in hospitals. It was during this research study that Glaser and Strauss developed the constant comparative method as a fundamental aspect of grounded theory. Charmaz states that “grounded theory methods consist of systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analysing qualitative data, to construct theories grounded in the data themselves” (2006:2).

The grounded theory approach provided an appropriate method to analyse my data. It fitted well with data collected from face-to-face recorded interviews and afforded me the opportunity to understand what was going on with the bereaved families as opposed to purely describing the situation. In relation to grounded theory Corbin and Strauss (2008) say “qualitative research allows researchers to get at the inner experience of participants to determine how meanings are formed through and in culture and to discover rather than test variables” (2008:13). Charmaz (2006:28) states that intensive qualitative interviewing fits grounded theory methods particularly well, saying that “both grounded theory and intensive interviewing are open ended, yet directed, shaped yet emergent and paced yet unrestricted”.

After an exhaustive review of literature on grounded theory (Glaser, 1978;

Glaser, 1992; Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Heath and Cowley, 2004;

Charmaz, 2006; W alker and Myrick, 2006; Moghaddam, 2006; Scott and Howel, 2008) in relation to coding, I decided to follow Strauss and Corbin (1990), and adopted the three stages of the coding process for my data analysis, ‘open’, ‘axial’ and ‘selective’ with some influence from Glaser (1967).

Strauss and Corbin (1990) state that:

“Well performed grounded theory meets all the requirements of good science, significance, theory observation, compatibility,

generalisability, reproducibility precision, rigor and verification”

(190:27).

Data analysis is an integral part of the research process and has been ongoing throughout the data collection phases of my study. I adopted a continuous coding process. Grounded theory coding as described by Charmaz (2006) as the “bones of your analysis” (2006:48). Charmaz (2006) goes on to say that coding defines what is happening and provides a tool for understanding what is happening. Strauss (1987) argues that “the excellence of the research rests in part on the excellence of coding” (1987:27). Strauss and Corbin (1998) define coding as the process through which “the data is fractured, conceptualised and integrated to form theory” (1998:3). Strauss advises the researcher to remember that Coding:

1. “Follows upon and leads to generative questions

2. fractures the data, thus freeing the researcher from description and forcing interpretation to higher levels of abstraction.

3. is the pivotal operation for moving toward the discovery of a core category: and so

4. move towards ultimate integration of the entire analysis: as well as 5. yields the desired conceptual density”

(1987:55).

My analysis began with ‘open coding’ in which I was looking for themes, ideas and categories to code. The coding process started as early as the transcription, as it was at this stage that common themes started to emerge, although I remained open minded until I was in a position to explore the data in more detail. The coding allowed me to define categories and as Charmaz

(2006:47) states by comparing “data with data” we learn what factors our research participant’s view as problematic and begin to treat it analytically.

Each interview was analysed as an individual unit in which I examined the data line by line and then subjected it to inter-case analysis, which allowed constant comparison of data as it developed. The aim of open coding is to

“open up the inquiry” (Strauss, 1987:29), for me it was the first stage of trying to make some sense of my data. Charmaz posits that open coding data is “the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain data” (2006:46). Axial coding, was the second phase o f my coding process which identified central phenomena and allowed for the interconnecting of categories (Creswell, 1998) and the “development of major categories” (Charmaz, 2006:60). The third stage of my coding was selective coding, where development of the story began to show by further defining concepts and sub-concepts identified in the axial stage. Moghaddam (2006:8) states that “through selective coding the categories are integrated and developed into theory”. During the three stages of selective coding I continually asked myself what was happening in the data.

Throughout my study I made an attempt to write memos. After each interview I made a record of my meeting, who I had met, where I had met them and highlighted any significant observations. I did this in the car immediately after the interview whilst it was fresh in my mind, usually speaking into the tape recorder or making written notes. The points I recorded in this way acted as a valuable developmental tool. Charmaz (2006) states that memo writing is the pivotal intermediate step between data collection and writing draft papers.

She goes on to say that memo writing constitutes a crucial method in grounded theory because it prompts the researcher to analyse the data and code early in the research process (2006:72).

I also audio recorded my own thoughts after each interview in order to capture my feelings at the time, which I have included in my analysis. Throughout the study I have been conscious to incorporate all of the material, including observation and verbal and non-verbal data noted during the interviews. This

proved to be crucial material for analysis in conjunction with the data recorded on tapes and the transcriptions of those tapes.

In order to ensure familiarity with the data, I listened to the recorded tape several times following each interview. I also read the transcription over and, by using both familiarisation techniques, I was able to really immerse myself into the individual family experiences. This intense familiarity with the data allowed me to recognise important ideas and patterns of experiences in relation to generating theories. At the outset it had been my intention to transcribe all the audiotapes myself. However, due to my work-time constraints two of my colleagues undertook the actual transcription of some of interviews.

Moghaddam (2006) defined three basic stages that need to be addressed during the process of developing grounded theory:

1. “Firstly collection and interpretation o f data which is mainly concerned with how, why and where early concepts and categories were derived.

2. secondly to abstract the concepts and find theoretical meaning, and final stage, and

3. thirdly should present the theory bringing together concepts and

integrating them into categories which have explanatory power with the context of the research".

(2 006:8).

Silverman (2005:180) cites that one of the criticisms of using grounded theory is its “failure to acknowledge implicit theories which guide work at an early stage”. He goes on to say that the grounded theory approach is more concerned with the generation of theories than about their testing. Used unwisely, grounded theory can degenerate into an “empty building of categories or a mere smoke screen used to legitimize purely empiricist research”. Acknowledging Silverman’s criticism, I was careful not to produce an empty, meaningless tower of information. There is no question that the actual ‘coding up method’ I used was a very long and time-consuming process, which required intense detailed examination of the data collected and continuous comparison to separate the interwoven themes that emerged.

In summary, the following stages of the grounded theory method were adopted to analyse my data. The first stage of my analysis was coding my data into topics relevant to my study. The transcription process provided me with a basis to start an in-depth analysis of the content of the interviews.

During the memoing stage I recorded notes that emerged from the coding.

Writing up my memos was time-consuming and labour-intensive but proved to be a valuable part of the process. Throughout all of the stages of analysis a pivotal part of the process in the development of theory was constant comparison of codes and categories. The final stage of my analysis is as described by Birks and Mills (2011:12) which was to produce an “integrated and comprehensive grounded theory that explains a process or scheme associated with a phenomenon” . By following the process of analysis described by Strauss and Corbin (1990), I have aimed to achieve a credible and reliable theory based on the data collected throughout my study.