Axial coding

The next stage of the data collection and analysis process was the axial coding process, as shown in chapter 9. The purpose of this stage of grounded theory is to remain close to the descriptive data, discussed in chapter 8, but to move beyond that and into a deeper interpretation and articulation of the 9 concepts, or conditional factors (known in grounded theory as subcategories).

Axial coding represents a development of the interpretivist analysis, where patterns that emerged from the initial coding of the data were then explored more fully (Charmaz, 2008, 2014). During this stage, the nine initial concepts were refined into two core relatable categories. Five concepts were related to the core category of trust and four concepts were related to the core category of sense of belonging. In order to do this, a descriptive

summary of the concepts drawn from data were combined with an interpretive analysis of them as related to each other and to the core category. These refined categories were then developed in turn in order to demonstrate their conceptual merit. Lastly, the two core

categories were related to the extant literature on shared leadership, and other relevant bodies of literature, including literature on social identity, trust and sense of belonging.

The nature of qualitative case study research using a grounded theory approach results in a substantial element of narrative, which is ‘thick’ and hard to summarise (Flyvbjerg, 2006). This is often presented as a drawback to both case study research and grounded theory, but in fact is one of the strengths, with the thick descriptions offering insights into lived experiences that other methodologies do not (Maxwell, 2013). However, this

substantial level of narrative does present a challenge for the type of research undertaken in this study, in that it is difficult to present the amount of data gathered in a way that goes beyond a descriptive, sequential narrative. The issue with such a narrative is that it can lack insight, be overtly descriptive, without any meaning derived from it, and can be difficult to read (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Langley & Abdallah, 2011) or that it is too subjective and contains evidence of arbitrary judgements by the researcher.

The key to presenting something that is both interesting to read and presents insights in a credible way is based on an emphasis on interpretation, as encouraged by qualitative inquiry (Stake, 1995). Qualitative studies are not confined to the identification of variables and the development of measurement instruments, reported via the statistical analysis and interpretation processes. Instead, the qualitative case study researcher is aiming for thick description and an understanding of the experience and meaning of the participants. The emphasis then, as Stake (1995, p. 9) suggests, is on being an interpreter in the field, observing the workings of the case, objectively recording what is happening but also examining the meaning, and continuing to collect data until those meanings have been substantiated.

This interpretation therefore needs the scholar to draw their own assertions about the data (Erickson, 1986), whilst simultaneously acknowledging that other interpretations exist than those of the researcher (Stake, 1995). Interpretation, however, is often viewed as the greatest weakness of the grounded theory method, with critics pointing to issues with researchers ‘remaining within the data’ – trying to remain objective whilst simultaneously allowing personal experience to make sense of the data (Kempster & Parry, 2011). The process of developing a grounded theory requires emergent conceptual analysis and the movement from empirical data to codes and concepts and then into abstraction via the axial and selective coding process. Abstraction such as this requires interpretation which goes beyond surface level data and relies on metaphors, related concepts and other

supplementary literature in order to assist the emergent process (Kempster & Parry, 2011). This is what grounded theorists call theoretical sensitivity, which concerns the researcher being able to reconstruct meaning from the data and separate what is relevant from what isn’t. This allows them to develop theory, and the theories themselves are “interpretations made from a given perspective as adopted or researched by researchers” (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, p. 279)

Case study research undertaken with a grounded theory approach therefore consists of both an inherent strength – the nuanced, deep, rich understanding of the observed – and an inherent weakness – the closeness required by the researcher, which poses risks of bias and implies issues with credibility and trustworthiness. In order to counteract this potential bias, and to defend against claims of validity threats such as arbitrary judgements, I needed to ensure there was rigour in my study. Designing the study as a qualitative case-study, using a grounded theory strategy had several benefits in terms of demonstrating the validity of the study. These are outlined below:

- Collection of rich data. A qualitative approach to data collection resulted in rich data that was both detailed and varied enough to provide a full and revealing picture of what was going on. This rich data provided for the interpretations and conclusions (Maxwell, 2013).

- Member checking of interpretations. Because the researcher gets very close to those being studied and – in the case of this study – presented concepts, categories and the developed theory to participants directly, findings are more likely to be corrected by the participants (Flyvbjerg, 2006). In this way, I minimised construct error and poor validation of concepts, categories and theory, thus improving reliability within the findings.

- Discrepant evidence or negative cases. Here I was aware of Flyvbjerg (2006)

description of ‘bias towards verification’, which suggests that there is a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions – this was potentially relevant in this study, due to my previous experience of working in a similar environment to that of the context of the study. In order to mitigate against this, I engaged with the

examination of both the supporting and discrepant data, which allowed for the exploration of instances which disproved emergent themes (Maxwell, 2013). In addition, I sought feedback on my conclusions from both my participants and my supervisory team, as well as through presentations at various conferences.

- Internal generalisability. Generalisability within the case is a key issue for qualitative case studies, and the validity of the findings depend on the internal generalisability to the case as a whole (Maxwell, 2013). Adequately understanding the variation of the phenomena being studied is necessary – in this study, this is achieved through

diversity within the units of analysis, in-depth interviews and observation and through reflection, field notes and memo taking.

- Dependability. This relates to the issues of reliability in positivist research, and here it was accomplished through an auditable research process, evidenced through the use of field notes, memo-taking and the primary data.

We can see then that a qualitative, collective-case study, using a grounded theory approach adds substantial weight to the validity of the study. To further understand the validity it is necessary to consider whether enough data was collected to justify the developed theory – theoretical saturation is therefore discussed in the next section.