After the first phase of data collection, I created a system for storing and naming my electronic files. I began transcribing my interviews, replaced actual names with pseudonyms, and used the ‘anonymized’ versions of my transcriptions for coding and analysis. I uploaded my interview transcripts in NVivo and organized them into document types (individual vs. group) to facilitate the analysis. I then worked on a sample set of interviews (16 files) and attempted to code sections of each document using the software’s functionality. Guided by the notion of actants and using concepts drawn from the literature, I created general categories or codes for organizing my data. As I worked through each document, I began to realize that my initial coding structure was not very helpful as most of the sections were being coded repeatedly under several categories. I reassessed the categories and made some adjustments
70 based on my first coding attempt. I then decided to organize my data under four major categories, two of which were further broken down into subcategories. These were (1) Framing and Overflowing, (2) Logic, Perception, & Knowledge of FPMs, (3)
Network, and (4) Values & Countervalues (see Table 4-5). These categories were chosen to capture activities, entities, and statements of logic or rationality. The first category, drawn from the literature, was intended to capture any references to a framing and reframing effort, as well as overflows due to tensions, conflicts,
challenges, and others. The second category was intended to provide a placeholder for a standard question asked of all participants to situate the FPMs position in their world. The third category, Network, was further broken down into a manageable number of subcategories that emerged from the data. These were intended to capture the human and nonhuman entities in the network under investigation. The final category, also subdivided, was meant to capture actants’ values and valuation statements.
71
Table 4-4 Coding scheme
Name Description Files References
FirstRound 0 0
Communication & Information Flow 0 0 External 10 23 Internal 16 74 Components 0 0 People 14 76
Regulations, Policies, Rules 10 27
Structural entities Commonly understood as units, agencies,
institutions, organizations, etc.
13 51
Tools References to tools, devices, apparatus, etc. 15 67
Configuration Lay out of various components or elements in the
organization; building set-up; etc. 10 27
FPM & Incentive System Perception (e.g. policy instrument, position, rank,
level of performance, standard, focus, evidence, etc.) and mechanics
15 109
Perception of CS 11 26
Tensions, Conflicts, and Negotiations
Anything that suggests inconsistency, uncertainty, a dilemma, or a tension
15 62
Work strategies & performance factors
Specific to individual work practices or factors affecting individual performances
16 72
SecondRound 0 0
Framing & Overflowing Defining/setting boundaries, roles, positions,
tasks, etc; possibilities and management of overflows
32 217
LogicPerceptionKnowledge FPMs
Any references to logic and understanding of FPMs
31 125
Network 0 0
Cases or Tasks References to tasks, cases or case-related objects
they work with (e.g. actual cases, mail, bench warrants, arrests, etc.)
18 43
Comm&Training Includes emails, charts, meetings, newsletters,
training, and all other forms of communication
32 165
Human actors Heads, managers, supervisors, leads, employees 31 175
Policies&Regs At federal, state, or local levels; Includes
procedural guides, statutes, directives, etc. 18 38
Structure Organisational structures and entities, groups,
partners, etc. that contribute to the overall child support structural framework
29 115
Technology Broadly understood as tools, devices, forms,
pamphlets, reports, etc.
30 119
Values or Countervalues 0 0
EconomicQuantitative 33 311
Moral or Personal 28 89
72 Overlaps between these categories were inevitable given my ontological
assumptions about the world that is entangled in a complex network of associations. But it is precisely these overlaps that allowed me to examine their associations. By using NVivo to organize and code my data, I was able to run queries and examine some of these associations without having to refer to the entire transcripts. But it also allowed me to refer back to them with a click of a button, if needed, or if new
perspectives and dimensions suddenly emerged. The back and forth between specific coded sections and whole transcripts kept my analysis grounded and situated, thus enabling me to observe the ethnomethodological principle of learning from actors what, how, and why they do what they do (Latour, 1999a). Using the coded texts in each category as my starting point, I was able to explore their many connections and dimensions and trace the network that was gradually unfolding. Yet, unless the entire transcripts were uploaded and coded, it would have been difficult for me to retrace the connections that constituted their accounts. To cite an example, examining if and how ‘Policies and Regulations’ might have contributed to the formatting or shaping of DAFS’ network, I ran a coding query with the following criteria: texts coded at Category 1 (Framing and Overflowing) and Category 3.4 (Network/PoliciesRegs). This query generated all the texts coded at both categories and I used the results to examine their connections. I conducted further queries using different categories to explore other possible intersections.
NVivo, as a mediating device, offered ways of engaging with my data. Having used an earlier version of this tool in the past, I was cautiously aware of how it could be both a ‘constrainer and enabler’ (Baiocchi, Graizbord & Rodríguez-Muñiz, 2013). Again, if my intention was to follow the actors, I must refrain from ‘imposing on them an a priori definition of their world-building capacities’ (Latour, 1999a: 20, italics in the original). Thus, I deliberately chose to limit my use of NVivo to data storage and high-level coding to keep the tool from stipulating the rules of
engagement with my data. My coding structure was kept simple so as not to be constrained by my categories. Nevertheless, categories were necessary to put some order in this messy process. Because I transcribed and coded my interviews, and repeatedly read them, I became familiar with the data and comfortable conducting text or document searches beyond my schematic ordering. This, of course, helped my analysis. I also reviewed my annotations and observation notes to provide dimensions
73 to the connections that were developing. I also relied on the external sources gathered to make sense of the accounts. This made up for the limited time I spent on site. Like working on a jigsaw puzzle, I embarked on putting the pieces together by providing a rich account of the connections that my actants deployed to make the movement of the social visible (Latour, 2005). I exposed the love-hate relationships between these heterogenous actors to unravel the beauty of a dynamic ‘social’. Although this reconstructed ‘partial’ puzzle might quickly shift or disappear, the accounts my participants generously shared will always be part of that long chain of translation (Callon, 1986) that carefully assembled, enacted, and temporarily stabilized DAFS’ network of relations, but not without my acting in and on their world with a sensibility that is distinctly ANT (Law & Singleton, 2013). Hence, the reality produced by my rich descriptions is a reality that is performative and limited (Law, 2008). It is a reality that is mediated by my writing (Latour, 2005) that could be extended and reconfigured further by those who wish to connect with it.