Data analysis after abandoning NVivo

what  had  been  collected  in  fieldwork  were  being  excluded  because  not  all   empirical  material  could  be  coded.  This  led  to  a  growing  sense  of  feeling   distant  from  the  data  and  discomfort  about  relying  on  the  coding  aptly   representing  what  had  emerged  from  participation  and  observation.  Hence,   NVivo  was  ultimately  abandoned.  

4.5.3 Data analysis after abandoning NVivo  

Reverting  to  a  more  manual  immersion  in  data  trying  to  achieve  thematic   analysis  involved  repeatedly  rereading  field  notes,  policy  reports  and  

documents  whilst  listening  to  interviews  again  and  again.  In  particular  through   rereading  the  complex  government  policies  the  aim  was  to  understand  what  it   was  that  had  become  inscribed  in  their  texts.  Whilst  efficient  and  ‘clean’,  an   issue  of  QDAS  in  this  study  was  that  it  could  not  include  everything,  all  the   leaflets,  postcards  and  other  artefacts  and  things,  collected  in  fieldwork.  

Therefore,  despite  having  all  the  interviews  transcribed  into  text  and  coded  in   NVivo,  on  reflection  analysis  began  not  through  the  rereading  and  coding  of   transcripts  but  through  listening  to  the  interviews,  rereading  texts,  handling   the  things  from  the  fieldwork  box  and  achieving  immersion  in  the  data  in  this   way.  Silverman  (2017)  also  favoured  this  as  a  method  as  opposed  to  what  he   described  as  ‘the  line  by  line  analysis’  (p.  154)  proposing  that  listening  can   provide  a  more  holistic  approach  to  taking  in  the  whole  interview  in  analysis.  

Certainly,  in  the  struggle  to  be  able  to  show  the  integrity  of  those  encountered  

in  the  course  of  undertaking  ethnographic  work,  and  in  particular  reflect  the   emotion  and  passion  which  at  times  the  team  showed  when  explaining  how   difficult  they  were  finding  trying  to  carry  out  their  work  at  St  Angela’s,   listening  to  rather  than  reading  the  interviews  proved  more  illuminating.  

Rather  than  reducing  the  data  into  words  and  phrases  it  became  important  to   build  up  from  the  data,  in  part  engaging  in  the  iterative  process  or  constant   comparative  method  associated  with,  but  not  equivalent  to,  the  building  of   grounded  theory  (Charmaz,  2014).    

Returning  time  and  time  again  to  the  empirical  material  and  re-­‐examining  the  

‘red  flag’  waving  incidents  in  the  data  these  events  were  written  up  into  short   passages.  For  example,  to  understand  the  current  context  of  EOLC  it  was   important  to  draw  together  documents,  interviews  and  observation,  here   drawing  on  Alvesson  and  Kärreman  (2007,  2011).  In  their  work  on  ‘mystery’  in   qualitative  research  Alvesson  and  Kärreman  proposed  the  writing  process  as  a   tool  for  synthesis  which  allowed  other  ideas  to  be  drawn  in  from  several   documents,  such  as  the  reports  and  policy,  to  illuminate  and  help  understand   the  empirical  material  collected  in  the  field.  This  method  of  ‘writing  out’  also   draws  on  the  idea  of  ‘in-­‐between  writing’  (Coles  and  Thompson,  2016),  

described  as  a  cycle  of  writing,  writing,  then  reading  and  then  writing  more,  or   writing  as  thinking  and  rethinking  (ibid).  In  particular  Coles  and  Thompson   discussed  the  suggestion  of  writing  descriptions  from  fieldwork  in  which  other   texts  were  brought  in  and  included  a  method  which  was  used  in  their  own   work  when  writing  about  education  but  which  had  been  illuminated  by  

drawing  in  elements  of  relevant  policy  and  reports.  Cole  and  Thompson  

helpfully  explained  a  process  that  in  this  study  was  used  to  take  account  of  the   policy  documents  which  had  been  collected  in  the  desk  work  part  of  fieldwork.  

Here  what  developed  was  a  way  not  only  to  connect  fieldwork  to  a  wider  sector   but  also  to  achieve  harmony  amongst  the  people  and  the  things  by  gradually   incorporating  texts  and  interview  data,  balancing  the  material  and  human   elements  of  the  research  setting.    

Synthesis  of  the  disparate  collection  of  empirical  material  was  achieved  

through  considering  the  suggestion  of  focusing  on  sketching  a  description  of  a   vignette,  a  ‘snap  shot,  episode  or  a  slice  of  life’  (Emerson  and  Pollner,  2001,  p.  

77).  This  process  was  considered  by  Geertz  (2001)  in  his  work  on  writing   accounts  of  research  as  the  process  of  ‘turn[ing]  it  from  a  passing  event,  which   exists  only  in  its  own  moment  of  occurrence,  into  an  account,  which  exists  in   its  inscriptions  and  can  be  re  consulted’  (p.  67).  A  vignette  was  a  further  way  to   make  sense  of  what  had  been  recorded  in  field  notes  about  episodes  or  

incidents  which  had  occurred  in  the  marketing  office  and  was  very  helpful  in   bringing  the  observational  part  of  ethnography  into  the  thesis  whilst  

furthermore  contracting  some  of  the  dominance  from  interviews.    

Writing  vignettes  was  helpful  when  considering  the  tensions  between  the   different  teams  at  St  Angela’s  and  the  strains  between  clinical  and  non-­‐clinical   roles.  Further  support  for  this  technique  comes  from  Alvesson  and  Kärreman   (2007)  who  urged  the  researcher  to  examine  incidents  and  the  friction,  

tensions  or  breakdowns  as  these  points  are  where  reason  and  rational  process  

may  not  be  apparent,  and  they  suggested  this  was  where  the  interesting  work   begins  for  the  researcher  in  trying  to  understand  what  insight  might  be  drawn   (p.  1266).  Certainly,  it  was  such  incidents  which,  hurriedly  scribbled  down   whilst  in  action  during  fieldwork,  ultimately,  and  with  careful  analysis,  became   the  most  insightful  in  particular  in  the  examination  of  what  was  difficult  for  the   team  to  accomplish  in  their  practice.  

Both  in-­‐between  writing  and  vignettes  offer  techniques  which  are  particularly   useful  for  including  the  ‘silent  voices’  (Blanchet  and  Depeyre,  2015,  p.  47)  of  the   often  missed  or  discounted  empirical  material  which,  as  discussed  earlier  in   this  chapter,  is  offered  in  the  methodological  choice  of  ethnography,  can  be   relatively  easily  collected  during  fieldwork  but  is  often  missing  or  

underrepresented  in  the  final  written  account  of  a  study.  Thus,  the  process  of   transcending  from  analysis  to  theoretical  insights  began  here  and  as  this   writing  happened  in  these  circumstances  or  conditions,  through  these  ways  of   bringing  everything  together,  connections  to  concepts,  ideas  and  theories   became  clearer  (Klag  and  Langley,  2013).    

4.6 Researcher reflexivity  

How  the  researcher  shapes  the  research  process  can  be  considered  in  two  ways,   firstly  how  the  researcher’s  behaviour  impacts  on  their  research  practice,  for   example  choice  of  research  methods  and  consequences  in  fieldwork,  which  has   in  part  been  addressed  within  the  earlier  explanations  of  negotiations  for   research  access.  Secondly,  reflexivity  is  concerned  with  a  consideration  of  the   researcher’s  own  beliefs  and  lived  experience,  or  what  Johnson  and  Duberley   (2000)  identified  as  ‘epistemic  reflexivity’  (p.  178);  views,  values  as  well  as   knowledge  which  the  researcher  holds  about  themselves,  and  at  times  others,   and  brings  into  their  research  practice  and  the  fieldwork  setting.  Whilst  the   researcher  cannot,  in  reality,  leave  their  life  experience  behind  or  exclude  this   from  fieldwork,  reflexivity  is  concerned  with  declaring  and  discussing  what,  as   well  as  how,  the  life  experience  of  the  researcher  may  impact  and  influence   their  practice.  In  this  study  an  example  of  epistemic  reflexivity  and  a  major   personal  challenge  was  to  set  aside  my  own  preconceived  ideas  and  experience   of  the  practice  of  marketing.  Having  previously  employed  some  knowledge   about  marketing  practice  to  help  smooth  negotiations  with  Kirsten  and  to  gain   the  access  to  St  Angela’s,  as  fieldwork  began  it  was  important  to  try  to  regain  a   more  partial  position  once  situated  within  the  marketing  team  (Coffey,  1999).  

Interestingly,  in  contrast  to  the  marketing  knowledge,  little  was  known  about   hospices  or  EOLC,  and  I  had  only  visited  a  hospice  retail  shop.  Indeed,  in  many   ways  in  this  aspect  my  experience  was  very  like  that  of  the  marketing  team,   further  complicating  my  position  as  researcher.