Application phase data analysis

In terms of analysing data and building theory, the intention with AR from the onset was to consider both practice and theory, but there are not many published sources that explain clearly how theory is built during AR. The apparent lack of instructions on how to build theory during an AR project in fact deters many researchers from using AR (Dick, Stringer & Huxham, 2009). Many researchers rely on frameworks from other disciplines to assist with theory building (Dick et al., 2009), and grounded theory is used by many (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Greenwood and Levin (2007) however make a strong case for the fact that AR has its own way of knowledge creation via ‘cogeneration’ where local insight contributed by the participant and research-based knowledge brought by the outsider (researcher) merge (Greenwood & Levin, 2007:102). In the context of this research, the outsider (coach) brought a number of theories and frameworks that were experienced by the participant (TM) and both contained valid information for refining the coaching framework. The theories and frameworks were applied using Davison et al.’s (2012) suggested use of focal and instrumental theory. This played an important and valuable part in guiding the data analysis in this phase. Using theory in CAR projects serves a dual purpose: it frames the focal problem and guides the intervention (Davison et al., 2004).

The aim of the application phase of the research was to refine and evolve the draft coaching framework that was created in phase one. Data collected during the macro- and micro- AR cycles were continuously analysed by means of content analysis during the various reflection steps of both cycles, and guided and informed by the various focal and instrumental theories employed during this AR process.

At the end of each microcycle (individual coaching session), the structured feedback form (completed by both the TM and myself – see Appendix C) and my field notes captured during the coaching session were analysed for clues as to the appropriateness of what was explored in that session given the overarching plan for the current macrocycle. I reflected on what contributed and what detracted from the macro plan. The feedback from the TM was usually received via email a few days after the coaching session, incorporated into the form and compared to my own reflections. TMs had to answer two questions:

 How did today’s coaching session help me to become more successful in my new role (if at all); and

This two-pronged approach tried to ensure that the process stayed true to the AR philosophy of seeking to add knowledge via research and helping the client to improve his or her situation by facilitating change (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). Insights from these reflections were captured in my researcher’s journal in the form of memos, a practice I found very useful during the foundation phase. The content of the memos was guided by the various focal and instrumental theories used in this AR process. These reflections informed the coaching approach in the next coaching session with the next TM in terms of which aspect of the TTC framework needed refinement or clarification.

Data analysis at macro level followed a similar approach, but with slightly different use of the data sources. At the end of each macrocycle, all the structured feedback forms and field notes were examined as a whole to identify potential trends or dominant themes that emerged from either my reflections or the TM feedback. These themes and trends were derived via content analysis and captured using a narrative style as prescribed by Greenwood and Levin (2007). The narrative format reflected the cyclical nature of the AR process. Each macrocycle was documented in a narrative style in the format: plan, act, evaluate, reflect and findings. This allowed for structured thinking about the AR process and the outcomes. During this narrative, the focal and instrumental theories were used as guides. In terms of focal theory, Kolb’s (2014) experiential learning theory and Lane and Corrie’s (2007) formulation framework were used to reflect on the extent to which the current macrocycle complied with widely used coaching meta-frameworks. Two questions were relevant:

 To which extent did the macrocycle contribute to the overall experiential learning process of the TM?

 Was the macrocycle still within the parameters of a formulation framework?

Throughout the microcycles (individual coaching sessions), the instrumental theories were used as tools to ensure the ultimate aim of the AR process and the TTC framework, namely facilitating transformative learning, was not lost. Mezirow’s perspectives and three types of reflection (Mezirow, 1994) were used to help identify the TMs’ problematic perspectives. Hoggan’s evaluation of transformative learning (Hoggan, 2016) was used to explain to TMs the nature of transformative learning and to assess to which extent they have transformed their problematic perspectives. The TTC tools that were identified in the foundation phase (section 3.6.3) were used throughout the coaching process.

In AR, the insiders (in this case me, the coach) and outsiders (TMs) are treated as having equal integrity because both are expected to behave in accordance with their backgrounds and knowledge bases and both have an equal right to be heard (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). This equality was taken into account when performing the data analysis in the application by ensuring input from the TM and my own reflections were taken equally seriously. The outcome of AR should support the participants' interests so that the knowledge produced increases their ability to control their own situation (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000). The ultimate test for inclusion of new knowledge into the TTC framework was therefore whether it was of benefit to the TM in assisting him or her to transform in order to transition successfully.

3.5 RESEARCH QUALITY ASSURANCE

In research, quality assurance during the research process influences the final quality of the result. In qualitative social research specifically, the researcher faces challenges around objectivity which, in turn, may influence the validity and reliability of the research (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). The fact that I coached the TMs in the application phase may also raise questions about my impartiality. This section aims to address this and other questions around research quality.

Aspects relating to the objectivity, validity and reliability of the research are (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1995):

 Transferability: to what extent can the findings be applied to other contexts and participants?

 Dependability: to what extent will the findings of the research be similar for similar participants and a similar setting?

 Credibility: how accurately are the participants’ views captured and conveyed?

 Confirmability: to what extent are the findings a result of the research as opposed to the researcher’s opinion, and can this be confirmed by other studies and literature?

Practical steps to address the above aspects are described in detail by both Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Marshall and Rossman (1995), and their application to this research is discussed here.

Transferability and dependability were addressed through triangulation and

following the prescribed grounded theory and CAR instructions. Triangulation, which is the use of multiple methods, methodologies or paradigms to research the same phenomenon, is considered one of the best ways to enhance validity and reliability in

qualitative research (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). In this research, triangulation was built into the research process by virtue of the two-phased approach that used different methodologies (grounded theory and AR) and methods (grounded theory data analysis and content analysis) to study the same phenomenon, namely the capacity of coaching to facilitate transformational learning during a leadership transition. Both grounded theory and CAR provide clear instructions on the data gathering and analysis process, and these instructions were adhered to as far as possible. In the case of CAR, a rigorous checklist was constantly consulted and eventually completed to indicate the level of compliance with the CAR process (see section 5.9).

Credibility was addressed through the review of captured data. During the research,

extensive field notes were taken to facilitate critical reflection on the part of the researcher (see for example Appendix C). Member checks, where the transcribed field notes and interview data were shared with the participants for them to check the accuracy of the researcher’s interpretation, were employed where possible, although not all participants in phase one complied with the request to review their interviews.

Confirmability was addressed through the process of reflexivity, which entails a

constant and conscious awareness of the effect of the researcher on knowledge construction during the research (Ortlipp, 2008). It was of particular importance given the potentially intimate and subjective nature of the AR in phase two where I coached the participants. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that the researcher keep a dairy to reflect on decisions made during the research process, specifically around logistics and the role of the researcher’s own values and interests. I kept a researcher journal in both research phases. In phase one, the process of writing memos became an implicit journaling technique where I could record my research direction, decisions and often also unresolved dilemmas (Charmaz, 2014). In the application phase during the reflection steps of the AR cycle, the recording of my thinking in my journal greatly assisted me to keep the AR process aligned with the focal and instrumental theories.

3.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethics in research is concerned with the procedures that should be applied for protecting those who participate in the research (Flick, 2014). Any kind of research in general and qualitative, social research involving human subjects in particular, could potentially present ethical issues due to the tension between the researcher’s aims and motives and the participants’ rights to privacy (Orb, Eisenhauer & Wynaden,

2000). An ethical theory consisting of four principles should inform the research process (Murphy & Dingwall, 2001:399):

 Non-maleficence – researchers should avoid harming participants;

 Beneficence – research on human subjects should produce some positive and identifiable benefit rather than simply be carried out for its own sake;

 Autonomy – research participants’ values and decisions should be respected; and

 Justice – all people should be treated equally.

In addition to the above, informed consent and voluntary participation are cornerstones of ethical research (Flick, 2014). These concepts refer to the notion that research participants must be fully informed of the research methods, aims, risks and benefits, and they must volunteer to participate with the full knowledge of what is involved (Orb et al., 2000).

To comply with the suggested ethical considerations, this research was cleared by the University of Stellenbosch Business School (USB) ethics screening committee for both phases independently. In addition, the researcher, as a professional coach subscribes to COMENSA’s ethical code of conduct (Coaches and Mentors of South Africa [COMENSA], 2013) that was adhered to during the research and specifically the coaching process in phase two. A letter of consent explaining the purpose of the research and the process that would be followed, as well as an outline of the consequences of participation was signed by each research participant, thereby ensuring informed consent (see Appendix D). Participants’ confidentiality and anonymity were adhered to by not revealing the names of the participants or their organisations, and care was be taken when quoting participants directly to avoid compromising their anonymity as suggested by Orb (Orb et al., 2000:95).

During the application phase where I coached the participants, there was potential for researcher bias. By its nature, qualitative research – especially AR – implies researcher involvement via data collection, analysis, interpretation and raising the findings to a conceptual level. To remain as objective as possible, I selected the data collection and analysis methodologies, i.e. Charmaz’s (2014) constructive grounded theory and Davison et al.’s (2012) canonical AR based on the clear guidelines they provide. These guidelines introduced a level of abstraction between the data and my handling of the data. In addition, I found that the sheer amount of data collected made it difficult to maintain a subjective view and I constantly attempted to allow the data to speak for itself.

My primary goal was to add knowledge, not to pass a judgment, and by keeping this in mind throughout the research, I was able to distance myself from potential preconceived ideas. The most prominent technique that I employed to address researcher bias was the keeping of a research journal. As a coach, I am trained and acutely aware of reflective practice. I used this skill to reread my researcher’s diary regularly with the aim of reflecting on my level of researcher bias. One aspect in particular that required constant attention was the fact that, as an experienced coach, I have already developed my own coaching framework. I had to remind myself constantly that the aim of the application phase was to develop and refine a novel coaching framework and not to superimpose my own coaching biases onto this new framework. By making this a conscious theme of reflection in my diary, I was able to remain aware of this potential hazard.

3.7 SUMMARY

This chapter presented an overview of the research methodology by providing a rationale for the selection of a two-phased research approach, giving a brief overview of the specific instances of grounded theory and AR used in this research as well as the data collection and analysis procedures followed in each phase. Research quality and ethical issues were also addressed. The next chapter presents the findings of the foundation phase of this research.

CHAPTER 4