Data Analysis

The overall strategy for analysis in this study was guided by an emic approach of coming from below, from the depth of copious data to the surface of a set of descriptions of varying ways of understanding the impact of reading from the perspective of the

research participants (Henwood, 2008), while at the same time backing away from imposing stringent guidelines on how the research develops or how data are interpreted. The strategy was inductive and thematic.

This qualitative strategy required memo writing to foster reflexivity about my positionality (Parker, Oceguera, & Sanchez, 2011) because, in contrast to most adult readers experiencing homelessness, I am a privileged individual who feels secure and confident of the future. Reflexivity "entails scrutinizing issues such as the dynamics of the research encounter, the values and assumptions framing the research, and the social embeddedness of the research process for their impact on knowledge generation and to inform readers or research users about the consumption of products of research"

(Henwood, 2008, p. 45). I used a specific structure (Maxwell, 2005) for my memos about relationships, values, and positionality and to develop a concept map (Appendix G). Reflexivity is critical for all qualitative research, but perhaps especially so when working with marginal populations. Challenges related to positionality will inevitably occur when scholarly researchers work with and for the disadvantaged.

Memo writing is therefore critical to analysis (Charmaz, 2006). Writing memos about what a person is saying, what is implied, and what connections exist between the study's research questions and the data all served to work "up" from an emic level, looking for patterns.

My memo writing also served to facilitate the creation of an audit trail for consideration of this study's credibility. Although some researchers (e.g, Cutcliffe and McKenna, 2004) have questioned the necessity for audit trails in certain situations, I sought to provide detailed documentation of the decisions made during data analysis

because I am a novice researcher, as suggested by Halpern (1983). The memos generated by this study are available. (For key excerpts, see Appendix C.)

Bracketing, "a method of demonstrating the validity of the data collection and an analysis process in most phenomenological studies" (Chan, Fung, and Chien, 2013, p. 1), is a methodological device whereby the researcher deliberately puts aside what she already knows about a subject under investigation (Carpenter, 2007). Bracketing is crucial to investigate second-order perspectives, because the object of study must not become what the researcher hopes the participants' conceptions might be (Pherali, 2011). Fidelity to an authentic rendering of the participants' "voice" is essential. It is impossible for human researchers to be totally objective (Crotty, 1996). Therefore, a record of the researcher's reflexive memos becomes part of the data. Analyzed alongside the results of member checking, greater validity may be achieved because the influence of the

researcher's own experiences and knowledge may be minimized. I worked to bracket my experience and knowledge by writing about it, embracing the advice that bracketing "be adopted upon initiating the research proposal and not merely in the data collection and analysis process" (Chan, Fung, & Chien, 2013, p.1). However, I cannot say my

experience and background were "minimized", only identified, recorded and kept at the forefront of my analytic process. This study is partially participatory, and my background and skills as a teacher were utilized to build relationships in order to generate rich, thick data.

In phenomenography, the analytic process is similar to grounded theory, in that both begin with creating codes to annotate the data, followed by categorizing the codes once patterns begin to emerge. But the objective is not to arrive at one overarching theory

about how reading affects adults seeking to overcome homelessness. This study does not investigate issues of cause and effect. Instead I sought to identify not only patterns (commonalities) but also variation (differences) within the participants' individual descriptions of their understandings and experiences with the concept of reading and its impact on their lives while homeless. My presentation of the findings for this study is therefore divided into two parts: commonalities across the participant group regarding reading's relationship to homelessness and then differences among the participants' individual reading lives.

Colaizzi's seven step method for data analysis (Colaizzi, 1978) provided a foundation for the analysis process. First, the interviews were transcribed. Second, all statements that relate directly to the meaning of reading and its relationship to

homelessness were extracted, numbered, and entered into a list. Third, the researcher formulated general restatements of meanings for each statement extracted. Fourth, the formulated meanings were clustered into repeating themes.

It is at this point where phenomenographic analysis begins. In Step Five, I

aggregated the themes into no more than 2-4 interpreted categories of meaning, according to significant variation in the data of the meaning of reading and its impact. This differs from Colaizzi's Step Six, (omitted in this study) which refers to deriving the fundamental structure [or] essence of the experiential phenomenon as it is revealed by explication" (Edward and Welch, 2011). Instead of searching the data for the "essence" of how reading impacts homelessness, the phenomenographer looks for variation of what reading means and how it intersectsthe experience of homelessness. Phenomenographic emphasis on variation of meaning was central to this study as a direct result of the

application of the guiding theories offered by Dewey, Knowles, Rosenblatt and Theory of Mind. Taken together, this study's theoretical foundations emphasize individual

experience, individual responses to text, and individual understanding of one's own thoughts. Finally, I attempted to return to the participants (whenever possible) for validation (member check) of my conclusions and findings. This corresponds to Colaizzi's Step Seven.