Analysis and Interpretation

The narrative data concentrates on the subject’s point of view and the particular meanings that they attribute to the bilberry harvest. Through the ongoing

fieldwork, I developed an intimate familiarity with bilberry heath lands, the flora and fauna, as well as the ecological and social history of the locations. It is within this framework that the narratives were analyzed. The analysis focuses on a specific content of the life stories of the individuals interviewed, the actual events, experiences and importance of foraging for bilberries or managing the land upon which they grow (See, Flick 2009:59; Lieblich et al 1998; Bertraux 1981). The learnings from each area were compared and then linked and triangulated where appropriate, thereby offering even deeper insights into the themes explored. As a consequence, the findings are an original construct, developed through dialectic of iteration, analysis and reanalysis (Berger and Luckman 1966; Guba and Lincoln 1985; Gergen 1985, 1999).

Deconstruction, Co-Construction and Multiple Coding

Analysis of such free-flowing interviews presents a tremendous challenge to the researcher. A biographical narrative does not provide evidence of fact or factual processes, but rather creates time-specific, subjective representations that are influenced by numerous factors. Whilst the audio recordings prompted by the SQUIN “caught” a co-constructed biography, I had to then interpret meaning. Flick (2009: 83) provides a loose framework to make sense of taped recordings that may help evaluate the nature of the response. One needs to ask a series of questions including: What kind of version is the subject trying to construct? What context do they put this particular experience? What kinds of social

194 processes or changes do they mention about the experience(s) or try to explain to the research or themselves?

Addressing these questions is a first step, but it is also vital that the analysis is done with full cognizance of the interviewer’s influence upon the construction of the narrative. That means reflecting upon the nature of the interaction between myself and the subjects and how this may influence the participant, the context and the resulting stories (See Table 6.4). Ultimately, the narratives analyzed in this chapter are co-constructed and will be affected by the assumptions and beliefs of the participants and myself, the researcher.

To try and account for this co-construction, a technique was adapted from Wengraf (136 et seq.), combining aspects of the various techniques developed by Wengraf, Strauss and Corbin, and Flick. The analysis began with short

descriptions of each narrative (Flick 2009: 318). Then the data was “segmented” into units of meaning (Strauss and Corbin 1990), then categorized by “grouping them around phenomena discovered in the data” (Flick 2009: 309; See Table 6.5). Next, the relationship between these various categories was explored and finally evaluated at a “higher level of abstraction” that focuses on potential core concepts (Flick 2009: 312). Finally, I used free coding to note anything that I thought might be relevant but that was not accounted for in the process thus far.

From the Survey, I had a sense that people imbue foraged foods with a social and psychological meaning and that this involves a sense of identity, belonging, meaning and purpose. The initial coding and analysis of the narrative data appeared to confirm this sentiment. However, one cannot extrapolate from

195 the present to the past. I needed to take a step back and enquire as why the subjects told me what they did. As Blumer (1969: 39) maintains:

No theorizing, however ingenious and no observance of scientific protocol, however meticulous, are substitutes for developing a familiarity with what is actually going on in the sphere of life under study.

Table 6.5: Broad Groupings of Phenomena Discovered in the Data

Codification Technique

By Hand 1 NVIVO By Hand 2

Context

(e.g. patch choice, perceptions of access, mechanics of process)

Time & Place (location, landscape, community, safety, rights of access)

Time & Place (location, landscape, community, safety, rights of access)

Social Processes (e.g. social

perspectives, attitudes re: food)

Food & Gathering (utility; physical,

psychological and social meanings)

Food & Gathering (utility; physical,

psychological and social meanings)

Individual Meaning (e.g. utility, evidence re: tradition, knowledge, meaning)

Self & Others (physical, emotional, norms, attributes, shared knowledge)

Self & Others (physical, emotional, norms, attributes, shared knowledge)

Free coding Free coding

Accordingly, I adopted a phenomenological approach and questioned everything: how the participants perceived me; why they chose to say what they did to me (and my recorder); why they were saying these things (for me? for themselves? for posterity)? What words did they use and what did they reveal?

In the next pass, I re-coded the data using NVIVO (See Table 6.5) and queried what my question elicited from each particular participant. The question,

Please tell the story of your relationship with [bilberries, wimberries,

whinberries, blaeberries, whortleberries]; all of the events and experiences that have been important to you personally. Begin anywhere you would like. I won't interrupt but I will be taking some notes for afterwards,

196 was constructed to elicit information about the participant’s relationship with bilberries, but not to confine it to this exclusively. In BNIM methodology, context is crucial and the participant related what they wished in the order they chose. Again, at each point in the analysis the researcher must remember that the process of eliciting a narrative is interactive and reflexive. A participant may be simply responding to my question, and dispassionately viewing herself through the lens of subjective memory. Or he may wish to write this particular aspect of his life story a certain way for a personal reason, for instance to set the historical record straight or to influence the listener’s perception of time and place.

In the third pass, I used the same rough codes, but focussed the analysis more upon the particular selection of words and how they were used (See Table 6.5). The SQUIN will have prompted the participant to think about their foraging self and what they wanted me (and/or other listeners) to know, but the word choice can reveal much that may be peripheral to this intention. The third pass also allowed for considerable ‘free coding’ to catch any issues that may have been missed or marginalized previously.

This Grounded Theory approach helped me to understand a great deal more about why these individuals may have told me what they did – and what it may actually mean in the context of my research questions. There will always be questions as to the accuracy of the data that comprise a particular narrative inquiry, but the narrative method and analytical technique adopted here does a good job of addressing some of the more obvious issues, particularly the positioning of the researcher. By insuring adequate width of the evidence, and

197 full transparency in the entire research process, subsequent researchers will be able to critically examine my interpretations (Leiblich et al 1998). Accordingly, this chapter contains a liberal usage of “I” where my interpretation involves a level of subjectivity.