The stage of data analysis in ethnographic research involves interpretation of the meanings and functions of human actions and mainly takes the form of verbal descriptions and explanations (Genzuk, 1999). It also includes the highlighting of “significant statements, sentences, or quotes that provide an understanding of how the participant experiences the phenomenon” (Creswell, 2007: 61). Research literature stresses the fact that analysing qualitative data involves noticing, collecting, and thinking, and that the process is iterative and progressive (Seidel, 1998). The methods used in this research to gather the
‘soft data’, and the place where these data were residing deep inside the participants, made me prepare for analysis at the outcome of the research. The design of both the conceptual framework (Figure 1, p. 42) and the data gathering and analysis flow chart (Figure 2, p. 53) took the nature of the data into consideration and allowed for analysis per and between methods.
At first, the data appeared to be a mass of confusing, unrelated accounts, but by following systematic methods of studying the data (Charmaz, 1983), they began to create some order. The process started by segmenting the data and breaking them into manageable pieces, then sorting and sifting, developing concepts, searching for types, classes, sequences, processes, patterns or wholes as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) and Seidel (1998).
Data were analysed according to Shkedi (2003), as shown in (Figure 3, p. 89).
The primary analysis aimed at addressing items and sentences, where all details were gathered with no clear relation between them for each method; the adolescents’ in-depth interview table (Appendix 17), the parents’ semi-structured interview table (Appendix 18), the narrative text tools table (Appendix 19/ Appendix 20), the focus group table (Appendix 21). In the next stage, categories and sub-categories were mapped, classified, and coherent relation was established between them. In the focus analysis stage, the categories were arranged into more specific ones according to Elliot’s (2005) categorical approach, which focused on dividing the categories for further analysis.
Figure 3: Data Analysis Process – Pilot
The pilot stage findings were presented according to two main categories,
“identity” and “future orientation” which were set a priori to the research, stemming from the literature and the conceptual framework. The research question dealt with the identity perception of the IMAs, and the conceptual framework considered identity conflicts within adolescents and minorities in general, and the Arab minority in particular. The “identity” category consisted of: “national”, “religious”, “personal identification” and “involvement in the community – heritage awareness”. A list of the categories and subcategories is found in (Appendix 22).
The piloting stage caused some modifications to the ways data should be analysed, and the process took several rounds of fine-tuning and re-categorizing, especially at the initial stages of analysis. Concepts were formulated, organized and categorized, only to go through more formulation, organization and categorization, for all methods in the research (Appendix 23).
Researchers are continuously interacting with the respondents and the research tools and each interview they hold produces more knowledge, not
General categories & sub-categories
Focused Analysis Adolescents’
In-depth interview
Focus group Narrative
text tools
Parents’ Semi structure Ethnographic interview
Future orientation Identity perception
Primary Analysis
Mapping Analysis
Specific categories and subcategories
Findings
only about the phenomenon studied, but also about the data gathering techniques as well, thus they gain more experience and know which “buttons to push” in order to get the information they need (Folkestad, 2008). Therefore, the analysis phase is a continuous process, where the different stages overlap and it becomes difficult to separate the collection, reduction and analysis phases from each other, “…data analysis does not occur in a vacuum”
(Erlandson, et al., 1993: 113).
Generally speaking, in order to understand and shape the IMAs’ perceptions, there was a need to delay judgment regarding certain expressions and wait for further clarification from other methods ~ mainly the focus group. Connecting this to the conceptual framework, analysing the data of each item separately, adolescence, identity, minorities... would reveal only partial knowledge about the complexity of the issue under study. The same way there was a need to synthesise the different theories in order to understand the entity of the IMAs, there was also a similar need to analyse the data as pieces of a puzzle in order to conceptualize the whole picture. Using the participants’ most common quotes from the in-depth interview, for instance, can help define the boundaries of a certain perception, and it is a good technique for illustrating or confirming certain perceptions.
However, while this method can help describe the data, it cannot be the only method used to interpret them (Folkestad, 2008). Therefore, once a concept has been defined, it had to be analysed at three different levels: first at the factual level, simply stating how the participants define themselves under a specific concept, such as religious or national identity. At the interpretative level, the same data should be analysed under the lens of a minority; how could the IMAs’ definition of their identity be better understood when compared to what the literature said about minorities’ identity conflicts? How does their definition reflect universal issues, and when does it shape a specific, localized form of that identity? For instance, if a participant expressed his or her religious identity as Christian only, without stressing the Maronite part, it might be better understood in the light that a member of a minority within a minority might feel safer when they see themselves as belonging to the bigger minority that
surrounds them. Moving to the conceptual interpretation, the IMAs data have to be analysed by combining all lenses together. Every piece of data referring to identity perception has to be analysed through the lens of an adolescent with identity issues, when this person is a member of a minority that, by itself, has its own identity issues, being a minority within a minority, living in the specificity of the region and its history. Analysing any piece of data has to be looked into as being produced by an adolescent, a Maronite, a Christian, a Palestinian, an Arab, and an Israeli who is living in today’s Israel. With evidence-based analysis, the constituents of the IMAs’ identity should be then shaped and understood so that the dissemination of the research would also yield appropriate results.