Categorising

4.11.3.1

The Core Category

In conGT, categorising is constant. Categories engage action and process (Charmaz, 2014) and are a higher level of analysis than themes or patterns; categories give priority to understanding and exploration of possibilities and do not pursue thematic accuracies in data (Charmaz, 2014). Categorising is the process in conGT that analyses empirical evidence, subsumes themes and presents properties, or core categories, of emerging theory (Charmaz, 2014). In Chapter 3 (p. 101), I draw attention that categorising also involves the lens of the silent blueprint, i.e. silences in

interviews and silences observed in memos.

Identifying the core category implicates two key tenets of grounded theory. First, categories are a function of theorising rather than of description. Second, categories are a function of intense scrutiny of inducted evidence which relegates ideas of whether numbers of interviews are relevant to a much lower order. Glaser (1978) states that “it always happens that a category will emerge from among many and ‘core out’ of its own accord” (p. 95). That is, it is the number of codes that are important, not the number of interviews. On the other hand, Charmaz (2014) points out that interviews have value for forming and informing core categories especially if they are controversial, surprising or complex. Charmaz (2014) argues that a different perspective is to revisit whether interviews are the only and best source of evidence and whether sufficient account is taken of observation, archival, and documentary research.

I found that all the Glaser and Charmaz positions applied in this study although I am deeply conscious of the objectivist and subjective differences between the two and what this may mean for induction of evidence. The category of “absence of learner disposition” (Chapter 5) was an example of one that seemed to me to have “coredout” from many codes from a small number of interviews. The sub- category of “loving to learn” was surprising and I found that I did include numbers of interviews in the testing of the theory. I did learn throughout the study that I had under-rated observation (of context and conditions in memos) and relied heavily on revisiting these when taking theorising to higher, abstract levels. A specific example of this was theorising “teachingdilemma” (Chapter 5) as

resting on issues of normalising and abnormalising of the learner experience. The “teaching

dilemma” might have arisen from other theorising (e.g. conflict with productivity goals) but constant comparison, coding and then observation gave the greatest weight to what was happening with learners.

In grounded theory, categories are constantly compared in similar ways to those in which codes are compared. In micro, meso and macro levels of theorising, my experience was that at times

comparison of categories did not necessarily illuminate a core category because evidence across all levels of inquiry compared very closely. For example, there were situations when comparisons across evidence of government and RTO policy-makers were very close to that of teachers and trainers: the issues of importance to one set of participants seemed of equal importance to another. It was then that I elected to return to axial coding. During the time of coding, I was writing an abundance of memos – perhaps with greater intensity than during any other part of the research. I next discuss memos and diagrams.

4.11.3.2

Memos/Diagrams

Memos, often with diagrams, are a distinctive methodological feature of grounded theory (Mills et al., 2006). Charmaz (2014) writes that memos create “… an interactive space for conversing with yourself about your data, codes, ideas, and hunches. Questions arise. New ideas occur …” (2014, p. 163). I was initially clumsy with memos and advanced the process when I organised into

frameworks. One framework was Charmaz’s concerns, justifications and reflections which I had used in interviews (Charmaz, 2014) . The three organising terms in memos grounded analysis of empirical material. For example, I compared concerns about the future of learners, teachers and trainers and policy-makers; I teased out justifications of policy-makers for why the equity system continued to show an equity gap; I explored differences of all participants to find unexpected emerging material about the commonality of reflections of teachers and trainers and policy-makers where I had anticipated stark differences. The anchors of concerns, justifications and reflections became incisive analytical tools.

An additional framework for organising memos involved: observations; actualising; confusions; and big ideas arising. It eventuated that the observation memos became a source of evidence and were coded and compared as an integral part of the analysis. The actualising memos increasingly focused on defining categories and ultimately comprised about 40,000 words and 20 diagrams. Actualising memos were essential tools and addressed the secondary sometimes compelling need to write the thesis although it was far too early to begin doing so. The confusion memos always began with the question: What exactly is the confusion? This caused me to probe whether origins of the confusion

were about the actual issue arising or about my response to it. I might, for example, find that my response to the question was “Because it is counter-intuitive” which was a marvellous reminder to interrogate my own assumptions. The confusion then was analysed in terms of why I found the matter counter-intuitive rather than based on the substance of the issue itself. The big ideas arising memos were those that were most often diagrams, or clusters. Often, they were short, cryptic, unresolved, and very frequently expanded over the course of the study. Observation memos were those most frequently revisited, added to, and expanded. These memos contributed always in a highly iterative way, to the bases for theoretical sampling, abduction, saturation and sorting which processes I next discuss.