Comparison, grouping and articulating

These stages are described together because of the constant interplay and overlap between them. In comparing quotes, the highlighted sections were cut from the transcripts and placed on a flip chart into groupings which appeared to be similar. The process at this stage involved a significant amount of moving and replacing data in groups as I moved from the individual meaning to a pool of collective meaning. Several attempts involving constant comparison were needed to refine the groupings which involved an ongoing reiterative process between the collective pool and the individual transcripts. This led to the groups being narrowed down to five, as the similarities within and the variation between groups was articulated.

It was apparent at an early stage that as well as similarities, variations existed between individuals’ experiences, but initially this was not well defined and difficult to articulate. Using the structure of awareness framework previously described in section 3.2.5, the aim was to identify both the referential and structural dimensions of how the participants experienced recovery, with the referential aspect referring to the meaning of the experience and the structural aspect referring to the parts of the experience and how they relate to each other.

Although Smith (2010) suggested identifying the referential and structural aspects are two distinct stages in the process of analysis this was not something experienced within this analysis as there was constant interplay between both. As the iterative process continued the dimensions of variation within the internal horizon of the structural aspect became more

apparent and this helped gain clarity regarding the nature of the external horizon. This clarity of structure then led to greater understanding of meaning. For example, in the grouping stages category A was thought to include an understanding of recovery as ‘being service led’ as part of its overall meaning (the referential aspect). However, with further analysis and

consideration of the internal and external horizons within the structural aspect, service led issues became recognised as part of the context of providing care and therefore part of the external horizon. This then led to a redefining of the categories as meaning within them became clearer. Marton and Booth (1997) stated that the researcher should focus on one aspect of the object of study, seeking its dimensions of variation whilst the other aspects are held frozen. This required identification of the different aspects of recovery apparent within the data so that the variation could be identified. This required intense scrutiny considering the context of the extract from the transcript and its relationship to similar utterances within the pool. The pooling of data eventually led to five different aspects being identified which participants experienced related to recovery. These incorporated issues related to the person, the nurse, nursing interventions, the recovery process and the nurse- patient relationship. As the analysis continued variation across the categories related to these dimensions of variation became clearer. These dimensions of variation are discussed fully in chapter four and

illustrated in table eight.

It was at the articulation stage that the three further transcripts analysed in the pilot study were included. The five preliminary groupings articulated were reconsidered in light of the additional data. I read each additional transcript looking for any different or similar

perspectives to those already identified. This process supported the groupings identified and these became the preliminary categories of description shown in table three. At this stage labels were attached to the categories.

Table 3 Preliminary Categories of Description

Category A Having treatment

Category B Making progress Category C Getting back to oneself Category D Living well

Category E Learning to live differently

Continued analysis identified further revisions to the categories. Version two of the categories of description is shown in table four. At this stage previous category A, Recovery as having Treatment was divided into two separate categories to reflect the clinical focus and service led focus. As discussed above this was later discounted with fuller analysis of the referential and structural aspects and therefore version three reverted back to the preliminary categories.

Table 4 Version 2 Categories of description

Category A Clinical recovery- reduction of symptoms Category B Service led recovery

Category C Making progress Category D Getting back to oneself Category E Living well

Category F Learning to live differently

Version four included refinement of the categories with more concise descriptions. A major change at this stage was the removal of the category Getting Back to Oneself. Marton and Booth (1997) stated that the categories should be parsimonious in that as few categories as needed are used to capture critical variation. The critical variation identified within category D prior to this stage was the notion of the person getting ‘back’ to something, while the other categories identified progression as moving ‘forward’. However, the category felt unstable when considered in light of the similarities with other categories. A careful review of the extracts supporting the category led to a reinterpretation of meaning when considered within

the context of the transcripts. Whilst linguistically the word ‘back’ was used, taken within context the meaning encompassed a more abstract notion of resuming activities of living and making progress, therefore not a critical aspect of variation. With this modification, data from the category ‘Getting Back to Oneself’ was split and combined into the other categories (table five).

Table 5 Version 4 Categories of Description Category A Clinical Improvement Category B Making Progress Category C Living Well

Category D Learning to Live Differently