Considering Word Frequency and Coding Analysis Findings

There is a range in the extent to which participants are coded across the mission and

more than twenty times. Frequency of coding by participants can be seen below in figure 5.6. This shows how frequently participants are coded across the mission and evangelism sub-node. It should be noted that some high scoring participants code multiple times on a few sub-nodes, whereas other high scoring participants code less frequently on more sub- nodes. Those coding across more sub-nodes show a broader and more diverse approach to mission and evangelism. As discussed in 4.7.2 the frequency and layering of coding reveals a more coherent picture of each participant than isolating particular codes or using word frequency. The overall spread of coding across the sub-nodes shows understandings of mission and evangelism across the sample of clergy participants.

Figure 5.6: Frequency of Coding within the Mission and Evangelism Sub-node in Participants’ Registration Forms

It is notable that whilst a third of participants did not use the terms mission, evangelism,

witness or outreach in their registration forms, all forty seven participants coded at least

twice within the mission and evangelism node. This suggests that participants, whilst being reluctant to use the terms, do provide evidence within the criteria. However, the presence of coding amongst participants not using specified terms is largely accounted for by references to children, the most common sub-node. The criteria refer to working with all ages of people coming to faith, whereas participants here often referred to ministry with children and young people per se, rather than children coming to faith. This highlights the somewhat problematic coding of references to children and young people within the mission and evangelism sub- node, as discussed in 4.7.2.

Coding for children and young people does not account for all instances in which participants are coded within the mission and evangelism sub-node whilst not referring to Criterion H terms. This raises questions as to why some participants, whilst referring to an aspect of ministry related to mission and evangelism, do not use the specified terminology. An

No. of mission and evangelism codes in participants’ registration forms

No. of participants 1 - 5 12 6 -10 12 11- 15 15 16-20 4 21-25 4

analysis of coding across sub-nodes alongside coding frequency shows that participants coding more frequently within the mission and evangelism sub-node often refer to terms specified in Criterion H,433 whereas, those coding five times or fewer tend not to use the specified terms. Those coding fewer times often code within the sub-nodes for children and

young people, and mission in the parish. In these cases participants refer to ministry rather

than mission with children, or closer links with the parish rather than more explicit references to mission, evangelism or witness with those outside the worshipping community. These participants often code at enabling others in witness rather than engaging with witness personally. They also code at the sub-node inclusive understanding of gospel, which refers to their understanding of the gospel; available for all, rather than an explicit commitment to share that gospel, or evidence of experience in this. It appears that those coding less for mission and evangelism, tend not to refer to terms specified in the criteria, and show a lack of evidence for personal engagement in mission and evangelism.

The absence of mission and evangelism terminology in the registration forms of a third of participants shows a clear reluctance amongst a significant proportion of participants, to use specified terms. A couple of participants who neglect to use the specified terms, provide evidence of both experience and a broad understanding of mission and evangelism. However in general, those not using specified terms also show less evidence for understanding and experience in this area. This adds to questions raised following the word frequency analysis about participants’ understanding of mission and evangelism and the place of this within ordained vocation. This will be considered further in chapter six.

Figure 5.7 provides the first model within the chapter. This will be developed through the various sections as findings are combined to form a constructivist grounded theory of ordained vocation. This first model depicts participants at the point of selection. Participants coming forward for selection bring with them their own understanding of ordained vocation. This develops through their experience, their theology of ordained vocation, and their own perceived sense of calling. During selection they present evidence of their calling and competency against the set criteria. Participants may exceed, meet, or fail to meet the criteria.

433 _{One exception to this is participant 9, often citing experience and understanding of mission and}

Figure 5.7: A Developing Model of Ordained Vocation in the Church of England. Model 1: Participants at Selection

Word frequency and coding analysis of registration forms provides evidence that participants come to selection with a wide range of understanding and experience of mission and evangelism. Some participants show high levels of competency, though a third of participants show considerably less evidence, providing far less evidence for the mission and evangelism criterion than the other eight criteria. As the chapter progresses this model will be developed to depict the findings, and to show how understandings of mission and evangelism at selection influence later practice.