Coding and analysis

Grounded theory variants utilise different names for different coding stages, but three phases, with similar objectives, are discernible in each of the main versions (Birks & Mills, 2015). In this study the terms initial coding, focused coding and theoretical coding are adopted from Charmaz (2006), reflecting the constructivist epistemology. These are similar to the open coding, axial coding and theoretical coding of Strauss and Corbin (1998a), though with less rigid formality attached to the intermediate phase in the constructivist version (Birks and Mills, 2015). The existence of three levels of grounded theory coding, creates a risk that they may be taken to suggest that coding follows a linear process. In practice, coding and analysis occur in parallel, in a highly iterative process that results in the gradual emergence and elaboration of the central category, which becomes the locus around which theory is developed (Charmaz, 2006). The iterative nature of the process in which the study becomes progressively more focused on the line of enquiry and that becomes progressively more theoretically engaged, is illustrated in Error! Reference source not found.Figure 5, below.

In first-phase coding, the process is wholly inductive, with codes derived from raw data as part of a de-composition and labelling process. As coding progresses through focused coding and into theorisation it becomes progressively more interpretative and abstract as more powerful meta-categories are selected and elaborated (Birks & Mills, 2015). These phases are reviewed in detail in the following sections after which the form and content of theoretical outputs are covered.

Figure 5 - Generating Grounded Theory (adapted from Birks & Mills, 2015)

3.4.3.1 Initial coding

Unlike qualitative methods that use pre-established tables of codes to ensure consistency (Miles and Huberman, 1994), in all variants of GT, the first coding phase uses entirely emergent, inductively derived codes. For each new interview, many fragments are coded against previously established codes, but many require additional

Purposive sampling Initial coding Concurrent data collection

or generation Theoretical sampling Constant comparative analysis Category identification Theoretical sensitivity Intermediate (focused) coding Selecting a core category Theoretical saturation Advanced coding Theoretical integration M e mo s M emo s

codes to be generated. Initial coding is a process for breaking down data into identifiable, manageable fragments. Fragments are labelled to allow them to be grouped and related. In this study, interviews were transcribed in full and coded in two stages. Transcripts were printed in the first instance, and manually coded whilst referring to the latest list of codes. This process helped as far as possible, to ensure that the creation of redundant new codes was minimised, and also helped to ensure that relationships with previous data were clearly established. Transcripts were then imported as Microsoft Word documents, into NVivo10. All new codes required were created, with their descriptions, before transcripts were formally coded. As the number of coded transcripts grew through the project, so the number of newly created codes reduced to a point where only a few codes were created for the last few interviews. There is a pragmatic balance to be maintained between maintaining too parsimonious a code-set, and an excessively detailed set that results in a problem of “code proliferation” (Saldana, 2016, p. 78). Where coding is too detailed, then there is a risk that relationships between coded fragments are not recognised, and potential patterns are not recognised. The coding set was continuously revised as new codes were identified, and as coding of new data led to amendments of the existing code structure. A total of 178 initial codes were created, which was considered to represent a reasonable balance between parsimony and proliferation. This set represented the study’s “evolving repertoire of established codes” (Saldana, 2016, p. 79).

In common with “most qualitative studies”, coding was undertaken by a single coder (Saldana, 2016, p. 36). Coding is a highly subjective process, and therefore attempts to apply rigour to the coding outcome (rather than the process) are problematic even for studies using prescribed coding schemas. In qualitative studies where multiple coders are a necessity, possibly due to the project size or location, then inter-rater checks of coding can help to ensure consistency in analysis. However, the use of multiple coders and inter-rater checks on other projects as quality measures is of questionable utility, because of the interpretive nature of qualitative studies (Saldana, 2016). Inter-rater validation is predicated on a positivist mentality that suggests that a ‘correct’ coding outcome is achievable. Even for Barney Glaser, the most positivist of grounded theory authors (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), this concern with veracity in coding is misplaced (Glaser, 1978). The objective in initial coding is not verification,

but enabling the subsequent retrieval, comparison and relating of data during the conceptualisation phase.

Figure 6 - First example of initial coding of transcripts

Interviews were analysed line by line, but the density of coding, and the granularity varied across transcripts. Codes were applied to fragments as small as a clause, or as large as a paragraph. The same fragment was, in many cases, coded to more than one code where relevant. This may, for instance, occur where a fragment is coded against both a process code and a situational code. In accordance with recommendations that “only the most essential parts of your data corpus” should be coded (Saldana, 2016, p. 79), passages considered to be irrelevant to the research question, or out-of-scope of the study were not coded, but were still retained.

<industry> is quite an inward kind of passion. I think that we've tended to recruit / and recruit people like ourselves. <Firm> is quite a restrained company so collaboration doesn't come that naturally. We're all suspicious and careful and we protect what we do, so finding the right balance of collaboration is often the tricky thing, when to delegate and when to do it yourself.

Risk taking

Collaboration willingness People like ourselves

Figure 7 - Second illustration of initial coding of transcripts And how does that process unfold?

I think it depends probably on how / on probably the relationship prior to what we might count as the collaboration. A lot of it is built on past trust and relationship. But I guess the key thing, whether you've known each other a long time, or there's a large partnership, or even a small, it's communication, I think it's communicating and making sure that everyone in the collaboration is aware what your role is, what your responsibility is and what you're hopefully going to get out of it. I think then you get hopefully something that's more clear and concise when you come to the output.

Right.

So, it's about recognizing people’s ambitions within the collaboration.

So, in terms of the formality of structure around the collaboration, what is and isn’t a collaboration for you?

I think really, I mean, when two people, or a minimum of two people, two organisations, start working towards a common theme or common goal, or something like that, or working on a particular area that they can both input either something different or / I wouldn't say mutually exclusive, but you know some complementary kind of skill set or expertise that go forward. That to me is a collaboration. Relationship Trust Key to codes Personal ambition Collaboration enabler Knowledge tacit

The example in Figure 6 illustrates the coding process, using a short segment of data and codes (but using a different presentation to Nvivo for simplicity). In this example three short non-overlapping segments of text are coded to three different initial codes. In other instances, coding, legitimately will overlap. In the second coding example in Figure 7 there are two instances where passages coded to trust and to tacit knowledge, respectively are also coded to collaboration enabler. Through this process trust and tacit knowledge have been identified as potential enablers of collaboration.

3.4.3.2 Focused coding

In the second coding cycle, focused coding, the relationships between initial codes were examined to establish similarities, overlaps and potential relationships. Codes were organised into hierarchies around key emergent categories (Saldana, 2016). Categories were either selected from the existing pool of codes, or were created anew, where an abstraction was required in order to name a category. In this process, redundant codes were combined, and complex codes were sub-divided. Inevitably, the larger the number of codes becomes, the more likely it becomes that the coder misses the presence of an existing code and creates a new redundant code. This is particularly the case where in vivo coding leads to the same underlying concept being identified by different words or phrases used by different respondents. Codes are also sometimes created to make distinctions that are later considered to be unimportant. In each of these cases, codes were first aggregated into a composite group for closer inspection and then either merged, or hierarchically structured as appropriate.

The outcome of this process is the progressive distillation of a category structure. Categories were explored for their relationships to other categories, and to establish their properties and dimensions.

SCAT Motivational

Collaboration reluctance Collaboration responsiveness Collaboration willingness Commitment

Falling over backwards Innovative mindset Leadership

Personal ambitions Pride

This combinational process is illustrated by the sub-category “SCAT Motivational” listed above. The initial code: “collaboration willingness”, an example of which is shown in Figure 6, has been grouped with the code “personal ambitions”, an example of which is shown in Figure 7. These two codes, along with seven others, are considered to be related to people’s motivation. This sub-category in turn was later related to a group of others under the category “CAT behavioural” through which a variety of human behavioural factors were grouped, and examined for their effect on collaboration. As each category starts to form, initially with a smaller set of codes, all text fragments and memos associated with the category are examined together to enable the category to be described and its properties identified. As categories are developed in this way they become more conceptual and can be explored also against the literature.

Through the categorisation process, the code “People like ourselves”, identified in Figure 6, was grouped with the code “Like-minded people” in a sub-category called “SCAT Identity” within the category “CAT Actors”. The data in this case indicated that when considering collaboration, people sought out individuals with whom they had something in common, and therefore did not just consider organisational suitability. The concept was explored in the literature and the existing body of identity theory helped to confirm and explain the noted behaviour.

Through this process of hierarchical organisation and revision, the study progressively focused on the six core categories reported in the findings. The largest and most important of these core categories is the category describing collaborative social processes.

3.4.3.2.1 Categorisation of social processes

Through the same categorisation principles described above, process-related initial codes were compared and hierarchically organised. A set of 42 initial codes were identified (typically words or phrases ending with “ing” or “ation”) and analysed progressively. Redundant and duplicate codes were removed, and then related codes were hierarchically organised. Three open codes were identified as composites of other basic codes and therefore resisted easy classification into the emerging categories. The data coded at these nodes were re-coded using simple codes only and the composites excluded from the typology.

Initial (open) codes Focused Coding groupings

Final process sub- categories

Allying Anonymising

Anticipating Contributing

Arbitrating Donating  SCAT Contributing

Arguing Presenting

Benchmarking

Brokering Benchmarking

Collaboration initiation Consulting  SCAT Learning Consulting Learning actively

Contributing Spying

Delivering

Diversifying Influencing

Donating Lobbying  SCAT Influencing

Evaluating Persuading

Exploring new ground Promoting

Facilitating

Influencing Delivering

Innovating Sourcing

Innovation commercialisation Solutioning 

SCAT Problem Solving

Interacting Innovating

Justifying Arguing

Learning actively

Liaising Innovation commercial’n  SCAT Exploiting

Lobbying Value monitoring

Market making

Networking Socialising  SCAT Socialising

Opportuning Networking

Orchestrating

Partnering Allying  SCAT Allying

Persuading Partnering

Presenting

Promoting Brokering

Prospecting Facilitating

Referring Orchestrating  SCAT Brokering

Reflecting Arbitrating

Relationship building Referring

Socialising Solutioning Sourcing Spying Value monitoring

The intention of the sub-categorisation process was to group codes into process sub- categories as far as possible without forcing distinctly different codes together and creating an un-cohesive group. This process is subjective and highly iterative. The final grouping emerged over several months (see Figure 8). The properties of the sub- categories were established initially from the open codes grouped in the category and then elaborated further during subsequent analysis of further data.

Figure 9 - Analysis of process codes for value timing

Emerging process codes were also analysed in terms of specificity and temporality. This analysis, enabled processes to be characterised as near-term with specific expectations, or long-term and specific, or long-term and non-specific. A further group was placed in between these three extremities. This model added further analytic utility to the categorisation process that gave rise to the typology. In this example, for instance, the codes: solving, sourcing, opportuning, and specific

learning, exhibited similar properties in yielding highly specific short-term value.

This added support to the decision to group these codes under the problem solving abstract category in the typology. These and other analytical insights, contributed to the development of the typology presented in section 4.4.

Timing of Value

(Not evident in data and unlikely to exist) Specificity Targeted innovation, lobbying Future High Low Near term Speculating General learning, Networking Partnering, promoting Consulting, benchmarking, targeted learning, spying Solving, sourcing, opportuning, specific learning

3.4.3.3 Theoretical coding

The initial coding and categorisation processes, although subjective, are largely mechanical and inductive. In the initial coding phase data were fragmented into short passages that were allocated to coding nodes, such that related clips in different sources were associated. Related codes were then associated by grouping them in categories. In focused coding, the data within the categories was studied to help describe the category and define its properties. Further data were collected to help this elaboration process. In the third stage, theoretical coding is a process of integration in which substantive codes and categories recognised during focused coding are woven back together (Charmaz, 2006) as part of a process that leads to the creation of an abstract central category, around which theory is constructed. The conceptualisation process draws on ideas and insights captured in theoretical memos created throughout the analysis process (Figure 10) and developing concepts are explored at this stage against extant literature. This phase of theory elaboration, requires deduction or even abduction (Locke, 2007). The format of theory presentation is discussed in section 3.4.7 below.

In order to derive a composite theoretical output, the core (most important or substantial) categories need to be related to each other. Their properties and dimensions and their relationships to other categories need to be established. This process typically leads to the formation of a central category, that itself, may be an abstraction. The figure below illustrates the process through which a central category was derived, in this study, by relating the core categories and deriving an abstract central category through which the resulting theory could be discussed. The lines show the mapping between core categories and the properties defined for the central category. It is these properties and their dimensions that are then described in detail in the findings along with associated theoretical insights.

Figure 10 - Relationship between data sources and coding stages Purposive sampling Initial coding Concurrent data collection or generation Theoretical sampling Constant comparative analysis Theoretical sensitivity Intermediate (focused) coding Selecting a core category Advanced coding Theoretical integration Memos and annotations on data meaning, interpretations, coding, categories etc Theoretical memos: Insights, ideas, issues, concepts, category properties etc Constructivist theory as a discursive piece, centred around the core categories and

their properties

Transcripts

Figure 11 Derivation of Central Category Structural Interactional Temporal Behavioural Factors Situational Factors Outcomes Central Category: I-ORM Description: Personal behaviours impacting collaboration processes Category: Behavioural Factors Properties: Willingness Risk aversion

Personal skill (incl. Social)

Description: Structural and environmental circumstances impacting effectiveness Category: Situational Factors Properties: Formality Relevance Social diversity Cognitive distance Description: Collaborating actors and their social and organizational affiliations Category: Actors Properties: Social identities Organisational affiliations Collective affiliations

Description: Value oriented outputs and outcomes and individual, group or org locus

Category: Outcomes Properties: Locus Benefits Tangibility Costs Description: Set of eight

fundamental collaborative processes Category: Interactional Processes Properties: Actors involved Activities description Locus of outputs See Figure 8 for detail of processes See Table 4 for detailed I-ORM properties