Coding

Coding allows the researcher to produce a descriptive account of what is going on in the data and also establish its meaning (Corbin & Strauss, 2015) and is the pivotal link between connecting the data with the emerging theory that explains the data. In this study, coding started immediately as data was gathered, focussing on what actions the participant was engaged in and what process these were a part of (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Three types of coding (open, theoretical and comparative) were utilized and all the data was coded using the latest version of a qualitative data analysis software package, called Maxqda, where outcomes of coding actions were ordered (eg. labels and concepts) together with the corresponding numbered line of data.

The sequence of analysis was (adapted from Corbin & Strauss, 2015):

a) Descriptive Coding: at first the data was analysed line by line, using compacted, descriptive codes (D-codes) to capture units of meaning in the text in order to organize and compare excerpts of interviews and explore latent processes. Line by line coding was chosen above segmenting the data into chunks of meaning for closer examination to minimize the chance of imposing pre-decided ideas on the data. Descriptive codes were noted on the left-hand margin of the transcript and the wording of the codes were kept close to those occurring in the data, to avoid any instances of data interpretation at this stage, permitting themes to steadily develop over time. Examples of open coding from an early interview transcript can be seen in Box 1 and Box 2 below:

96

97

Box 2. Example of Descriptive Coding and Memo

b) Writing Memos: Memo writing is a crucial moving part of grounded theory analysis; and was, also, used as a triangulation aid for increasing research validity/trustworthiness. Memos are helpful for noticing how processes in the data may be related, which show the structure of the new theory; and for spotting gaps in the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). At the outset, memo writing was part of coding the first interview and became a continual record of observations, inferences, questions, and theoretical ideas. There are two

98

examples of memos above – ‘Practitioner reflexivity 4’ and ‘Strategies for managing countertransference 8’. The memos are numbered ‘4’ and ‘8’, indicating that these memos were the fourth and eighth memos created within the categories ‘Practitioner reflexivity’ and ‘Strategies for managing countertransference’. They formed part of a growing memo-bank cataloguing these themes. In the latter part of the analysis when significant ideas emerged, the information from complementary memos was amalgamated to develop dense dimensional representations on each category. In both memos a question surfaced about an observation that the participant was evaluating what is most helpful to the client set against trying to “squash” her own conflicting internal response – suppressing own reactions when feeling conflicted about clients’ beliefs was found to be a common occurrence and a memo ‘reconciling different realities’ was later started from that stage onwards in the data.

c) Analytical Categories: these came out of the initial coding and memo-writing process so as to delineate thoughts and concepts which were materializing; and also pinpoint questions about the data to be followed up in subsequent interviews.

At this conceptual stage of analysis, the D-codes were compared to identify emerging analytical and meaningful concepts and combine large chunks of data. Those D-codes which presented similarities were grouped together to form focused codes (F-codes), which is the second and next major part of analysis, to succinctly categorise data. A type of mind-mapping was used to facilitate focused code identification for each interview. Any thoughts on emerging concepts were noted in a memo, for use in later analysis. (An example of the development of initial to focused codes can be seen in Appendix H). In vivo codes were assigned, when appropriate, to reflect expressive phrases participants used which best described their accounts, for example, “Being useful to client by having “insider knowledge” (of their faith)”. Charmaz (2014:134) advises that in vivo codes “use research participants’ terms as codes to uncover their meanings and understand their emergent actions”. An example of category generation and integration from the original transcript through to focused coding follows below in Figure 1:

99

Figure 1. An Example of Category Generation and Integration from the Original Transcript through to Focused Coding.

In the example in figure 1, from three distinct data segments, the significant properties of the three initial codings, have been blended, working towards the assemblage of a conceptual category. Codes have been twice worked over creating progressive layers of abstraction until arriving at a theoretical category “Embracing own uncertainty and vulnerability”. This level of category is tentative at first and remains so until a place is found for them in the structure of codes comprising the arising explanatory theory.

At times, it was difficult assigning descriptive codes and choosing focused categories when the researcher was aware of her own experiences intersecting with the data and how this could influence what was selected as significant. Therefore, at several points during this process, coding was re- checked to make sure it stayed close to the data and the meaning conveyed by the participants. In vivo codes that had been carefully checked for validity across interviews, were also used as a way of tracking personal bias.

Sensitizing concepts are guiding constructs linked to related research which Grounded Theory researchers use to begin their data analysis. For example, in this research the sensitizing concepts were overidentification, disidentification and practitioner reflexivity which were used initially to develop the interview guide as well as a starting point for the initial analysis, as

100

suggested by Charmaz (2006). They were useful for extending ideas about the processes in the data.

d) Theoretical Categories: as the analysis deepened and the analytical categories were fleshed out, theoretical categories began to emerge.

Participant’s experiences were constantly examined for contrasts and alikeness while the researcher was coding. This eventually generated correlations between categories (Walker & Myrick, 2006; see Appendix I) which led to categories either being joined together if they were the same or divided if they were not. The memo note ‘Strategies for managing countertransference –openness to learning from one’s mistakes’ shown in Box 3 has my reflection:

“The participant gives a picture of what it’s like to manage countertransference regarding one’s own religious issues – it’s a constant “battle”. Again this ties in with the image I had of a “war” earlier on in the interview, whether it’s between herself and her colleagues or within herself.”

101

This reflection is spawned by a specific data incident included in the category “Strategies for managing countertransference” that was compared with other matching examples of data given the same label. It is an example of constant comparison, described by Corbin and Strauss (2015) as an indispensable tool in distinguishing categories and there dimensions. What I have discovered is that managing internal conflicts about religious beliefs is not an easy process. The memo ‘Strategies for managing countertransference – squashing responses” contains examples of what Corbin and Strauss (2008) call ‘theoretical comparison’ where the researcher links the data to their previous understanding as shown in the following transcript extract and memo note:

Participant: “I think sometimes I do really have to squash those responses …we need to get all of our assumptions out the way before we meet the

clients,… otherwise we’re just going to bring them into the room.”

Memo note: “I know from doing psychodynamic work how the unconscious

manifests itself in all sort of ways, it does not stay hidden! Therefore, it does seem very important that clinicians are able to articulate the unhelpful aspects of their own experience with religious belief and not just “squash” them.”