Analysis of Stage 1 Selection Documents

During March and April 2015, the selection papers of the forty seven participants were viewed, and comprehensive notes taken. The registration form is set out in sections, with the initial sections capturing information about the candidates, their qualifications and employment history. This is followed by questions on leadership experience, hobbies, previous unsuccessful candidature for ministry, other plans if not selected, churches attended, a history of life influences and events, personality strengths and weaknesses, faith, sense of calling, prayer life, relationships, future ministry, disabilities and a final space for other information. These sections give the candidates the opportunity to respond to the questions, whilst referring to the criteria, and so giving evidence of their experience, beliefs and abilities, their sense of vocation and envisaged future ministry. Discrete data about participants (e.g. age, gender, diocese, BAP scores) was inputted directly into NVIVO. Extensive notes were taken, with particular attention paid to narrative sections of documents. These were then transferred into NVIVO for analysis.

As indicated in the pilot study in vivo codes were developed alongside codes drawn from the selection criteria. The use of deductive, a priori codes found in the selection criteria, may appear counter-intuitive, as grounded theory methods utilize inductive coding. However, ordained vocation is constructed in a formal form identified by the selection criteria. By coding participants for selection criteria codes alongside in vivo codes, individual constructions of vocation, which deviate from or modify formal codes, were identified. To explore references to mission and evangelism, and the use and absence of specific terminology, an analysis of mission and evangelism themes within the registration forms was carried out.

4.7.1 Coding Registration Forms

The initial coding revealed that participants appeared to be referring to the mission and evangelism criteria considerably less than other criteria. To investigate this more thoroughly a word frequency analysis of criteria terminology was conducted. Word frequency within documents is a rough measure evidencing only the frequency with which terms are used, rather than the manner in which they are used. However, the absence of terms raised questions about why references to terminology explicit in Criteria H were absent in so many papers, and why there appears to be a marked difference across criteria. This is discussed further in 5.2.

Registration forms were coded for any evidence relating to mission and evangelism. The constant comparison method across sources was used to develop focused codes, which are outlined in 5.2. These focused codes were then used to re-code all registration forms. The focused codes, developed through the analysis of the papers, relate to the criteria, but do not simply match up, suggesting that whilst participants did respond to the criteria, their responses were not rigidly shaped by the criteria. As such, it suggests that participants’ references to mission and evangelism, whilst in no way objective, are their own authentic responses to the criteria, rather than excessively manufactured to meet the criteria.

In developing a node structure for evidence of mission and evangelism in selection papers, registration forms were coded for themes which were drawn together under sub-nodes, for example, witness, fresh expressions of church, social justice. Creating sub nodes was useful in drawing out the information given in the registrations forms. As coding developed and

sub nodes were created, compared and reworked, clergy understandings of mission and evangelism at the point of selection became clearer. The sub-node structure is outlined and discussed in 5.2.3.

The development of focused codes into a sub-node structure relies heavily on the influence of the researcher interacting with the data. There is the risk that in grouping together initial codes into sub nodes something of the subtle differences between participants is lost. Furthermore, where similar terminology is used it could appear that participants have similar understandings, however, this may not be clear cut. There were a number of sub nodes (for example gentle witness and loving service) which carry this similarity and difference. Deciding which sub-nodes to code participants under was a delicate process and is discussed further in 5.2.3.

It appeared that theoretical saturation was reached after about twenty five participants as very few codes were emerging and those that did appeared closely related to existing codes. However, I continued to code all forty seven, to add confirmation to the coding and increase the options available for theoretical sampling and interviewing.

4.7.2 Coding Issues

There were three particular issues relating to the coding of registration forms that must be addressed. Firstly, assessing responses to leading questions, secondly, coding participants who wrote with a lack of clarity, and thirdly, in relation to children.

It was clear that some questions on the form were more leading than others. For example question 23 about Christian faith asks:

23. Summarise the most important elements of your own Christian faith. Why are they important to you? What is at the heart of the good news you want to share with other people?

In response participant 5 writes:

…At the heart of the good news I want to share is the invitation to have a new life with God in Christ….

Similarly participant 16 writes:

…The heart of the good news I want to share is that everyone is important to God, no-one is left out and everyone gets another chance…

Both participants write about wanting to share the good news, so both could be coded as evidence of a commitment to witness, but this coding would give no indication of the strength of that commitment. In fact, these two participants code very differently across the mission and evangelism criteria. 48 only codes twice, the lowest amongst participants. 5 codes for mission and evangelism twenty three times, the second highest coding level amongst participants, and yet they both respond to this question in similar ways, and as it appears, in direct response to the question posed. Because of this, participants responding directly to this question are not coded as a commitment to witness unless additional evidence was provided.

Whilst some questions appeared leading others however were less so. Coding for mission and evangelism in previous experience, perceived sense of calling, and envisaged future ministry, all areas in which there is no leading within the question to reference mission and evangelism, are more revealing than responses to question 23. These other questions show the extent to which mission and evangelism are viewed by participants as integral to vocation and practice.By analysing where people talk about mission and evangelism, it is possible to identify the participants who view mission and evangelism as a core element of their vocation and those who do not. In this way it was possible to track understandings of mission, evangelism, and vocation, and to develop theoretical categories.

Whilst it is impossible in reading the forms to assess the extent to which the participants were led by questions, it is possible to use the frequency and layering of coding across the categories to gain an impression of the participants’ commitment to mission and evangelism. So in this case, the extent to which 5 codes across the category shows a far greater commitment than participant 16, even though their coding for questions 23 show similarities.

A second issue in coding the registration forms is the lack of clarity with some terms. For example some participants use the term mission alongside other defining terms, such as evangelism, nurture groups, connecting with the community. Others write more generally

‘my future ministry will involve mission’ without clarifying what they mean by the term

mission or what this envisaged ministry will be like. In such cases these are coded under the node ‘commitment to mission’. However, where a participant refers with more detail, they

are coded both as a commitment to mission, and under other nodes they refer to. As such, a participant coding only once for ‘commitment to mission’ without coding at other nodes shows very little evidence of experience, calling or expertise in this area. Whereas a participant coding multiple times at various mission and evangelism nodes shows a much higher level of commitment, evidence of experience, ability and calling in this area. Consequently, whilst specific incidences of coding give a limited picture, the layering and frequency of codes provide more accurate measures of participants.

A further issue is found within the coding for children and young people. The selection criteria whilst covering a range of areas only refers to age in the mission and evangelism criteria. Here candidates are asked to gives evidence of ‘working across the age range of people coming to faith and who are new to faith in Christ’.409 _{As such, advisors reference all}

ministry with children and young people in the mission and evangelism section. Because of this, children and young people are coded within the mission and evangelism nodes. Some participants in describing previous experience differentiate between ministry with children who are coming to Sunday services, and other activities which engage with children who have no other connection to the Church. In many cases, however, it is not clear. Whilst this makes coding less clear, it makes sense to code in this way. Assumptions about children who attend church should not be made, especially given that many have no choice about attending. Certainly it should not be assumed that only certain types of children’s activities are missional. Having said that, the analysis here can only give evidence of commitment, ability and experience with children, rather than differentiate between types of ministries with children, though some differentiation can be made where participants cite work in schools. However, it should be noted that references to children and young people here include the whole spectrum of ministry with under eighteens.

4.7.3 Coding BAP Reports and Sponsoring Papers

BAP reports and sponsoring papers were analysed in a similar fashion, utilizing word frequency, in vivo coding alongside criteria coding with focused codes developed through the constant comparison method and recoded across documents. The BAP report and sponsoring papers follow a set format, with paragraphs written on each of the criteria. Extensive notes were taken from the mission and evangelism passages of these documents.

In addition any references to mission and evangelism in other sections of the report and papers were noted.

In analysing the selection documents, I attempted to move between the two extremes of faithful and critical analysis, believing the narrative whilst attempting to read behind the text to ascertain the motivations and methods employed to persuade advisors.410 Reading registration forms, BAP reports, and sponsoring papers provides a wealth of text from which to engage in this. However advisors are also not objective. Whilst advisors’ comments offer a critical perspective on the participants’ narratives, advisors also have particular motivations and their own constructions of vocation, which they may consciously and subconsciously apply to the candidate. This is discussed further in 5.3.

4.7.4 Summary of Stage 1 Methods

The process of data collection and analysis in stage 1, as outlined above, demonstrates the integrity of the research process. In ensuring enough background data was collected, and in using NVIVIO for the proficient recall of information about participants, robust coding and rigorous analysis was made possible. In taking a critical approach to the analysis of selection documents, holding together the different perspectives given by participants, DDOs and selection advisors, a credible analysis was possible. Attention now turns to stage 2, demonstrating how emerging themes from stage 1 guided theoretical sampling and influenced stage 3 interviews.