4. Methodology
4.4 Termly interviews
4.4.4 Analysis of interview data
My experience of analysing data was similar to that of Colley (2010):
We talk about data generation and analysis as separate tasks, yet in reality I was making spider diagrams of each interview after I had carried it out, listening to the tapes, jotting notes and partial transcripts of what seemed to be significant passages, continuing to read the literature and make connections to that, cross-referencing different interviews with margin notes in the full transcripts, and so on. At the same time, issues I had expected to explore were becoming redundant, whereas unexpected themes emerged. (pp186-7)
Here, I set out my own equally messy experience of working with interview data. Interviews had been audio recorded and were transcribed verbatim and word by word by me (Kvale, 2007) but with little punctuation. They looked akin to a play script. This lengthy process provided ample opportunity for me to become familiar with the text (Nowell et al., 2017). At this stage, I also added a few commentary notes to indicate laughter or a change in tone, volume or pitch of voice, and captured moments when we interrupted each other. I also added commentary on what I could remember us doing in the interview (for example, looking at a child’s book).
As modelled by Saldaña (2009), the interview text was printed to fill half of a page allowing space for initial codes to be added alongside. As I read through the interview, I used this space to add comments, questions and words to summarise sections of text (see Appendix 10). These effectively formed my initial codes.
On a second reading of each interview, I looked out for the ways in which participants and I had used language. I highlighted any interesting uses of voice and any unusual or significant phrases, especially where these were repeatedly used for effect. I also noted aspects of dialogism such as when we took up or rejected each other’s words or topics. My third reading was concerned with identifying aspects of Holland et al.’s theory (1998). I noted moments of positioning, including by me, and also identified moments when teachers appeared to be describing having agency or choice in how they go about their work15. My comments on positioning also included mention of insider issues and anything that made reference to my previous relationship with interviewees. As I noticed reappearing topics, stories and characters, or if anything reminded me of something in the literature, I commented on these (see Appendix 11).
With each reading came increased familiarity with Anna, Bernard and Claire’s overall narratives as well as their individual stories and reappearing characters. For each teacher, I completed a sociogram – a web of the people in their stories (for an example, see Appendix 12) – and also attempted to map power relationships between the teacher, myself and other central characters (see Appendix 13) (Cohen et al., 2011:448-9; Borgatti et al., 2013). In addition, I created a topic map for each interview (see Appendix 14) and took the recurring topics to be what was of importance for each teacher.
I then added post-it notes to the transcript to identify significant stories (see Appendix 15 for an example) and labelled these with a theme:
A theme is an outcome of coding, categorisation, and analytic reflection, not something that is, in itself, coded … As an example, SECURITY can be a code, but A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY can be a theme. (Saldaña, 2009:13)
By the time I was working with the third set of interview data, I had completed this process twice for each teacher and was very familiar with Anna, Bernard and Claire’s interests, and with the themes that I had allocated to some of their stories. I became more aware of how topics and characters were reappearing within individual narratives and also gained a sense of what were points of similarity and difference across the three
15 Originally, I had a research question related to teacher agency but I found that this was not frequently discussed. I concluded that I was more interested in understanding position and status, and how teachers orchestrate discourse – which were abundantly present in narratives – and that addressing these would provide a better picture of to what extent Year 6 teachers are able to experience freedom.
teachers. Before I had finished interpreting all of the data, I began to collate my observations in anticipation of the cross-case analysis required for the discussion chapter. Miles and Huberman (1984) – like Colley (2010) above – suggest that it is normal to have layers of analysis happening simultaneously in the flow of research (see Figure 17).
Figure 17: Components of data analysis: flow model (taken from Miles and Huberman, 1984).
Once all data were collected and interesting stories for each teacher were identified, these were transferred to post-it notes and grouped by theme (which was often an aspect of theory). This provided a visual representation of teachers’ narratives from across three interviews (and their pen portraits) which could then be transferred into the individual case studies (Appendix 16). This exercise provided the structure for initial drafts of each case.
As I began to write each case, I also continued to discover things about Anna, Bernard and Claire. As I brought stories together, I noticed nuances in the data that my earlier readings had missed. I continued to work on the data right until the last minute, always conscious of my responsibility to present an honest retelling of their narrative.
In presenting my data, I have removed the ‘‘mh’-s and the like’ (Kvale, 2007:95) and have tidied up the transcription, adding punctuation and the occasional word in square brackets to aid readability. I have also adopted and adapted some of the transcription symbols recommended by Speer (2008). These are shown in Figure 18.
Symbols
Meaning
word/
Cut off mid-flow(words)
A guess at what might have been said if unclear[words]
Words inserted to aid readability…
Words have been omitted((both laugh))
Comments on tone or actions or laughtero
words
o Words between the degree signs are spoken in a whisper↑word↑
Words between the arrows are spoken in a high pitched voicewords
Words are emphasised by the speakerFigure 18: Transcription symbols adapted from Speer (2008).