Data analysis

This section details the process of qualitatively analysing the data collected during field research and how I used systems theory and applied it with Indigenous critical methodologies. I used abductive analysis to construct a new theoretical model to apply to current development practice. Abduction uses grounded theory to systematically code qualitative data, which I did using qualitative research software.

I focus on one major country case study, Timor-Leste, which I purposefully selected because of its unique, information-rich context. The case study approach allows me to demonstrate the complex, holistic and interconnected nature of the current development system. By reducing my data set to one major case study I can more precisely investigate how structures, institutions and behaviours interact in a specific time and context (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Johansson, 2003). I also use six smaller case studies in Chapters Seven and Eight to illuminate detailed examples of my research findings.

2.3.2.1

Abductive analysis

The three primary themes I developed are significant areas of inquiry within Indigenous critical theory as I highlight in Chapter Three. This signalled to me that even though I was seeking to construct theory grounded in the data, I continued to draw on my existing theoretical insights and personal subjectivity, which led me to appreciate these themes have a resonance beyond

Timor-Leste. This led me to explore the use of abductive analysis, first developed by Peirce, as a methodology to build new theory (Anderson, 1986; Fann, 1970; Peirce, 1955). While

grounded theory, with its linear coding schemes and heuristic principles, was very useful to analyse large quantities of complex qualitative data I found that the induction method in grounded theory did not logically assist me in developing new theoretical insights. Grounded theory did not adequately account for or value my existing theoretical knowledge and social and intellectual positioning (Johansson, 2003, pp.9-10).

Instead, as I analysed the data I drew on my own experiences in peacebuilding and

development, positioning me as a participant-observer. Davies (1999, p.5) describes this process as “the relationships between ethnographer and informant in the field, which form the basis for subsequent theorising and conclusion, are expressed through social interaction in which the ethnographer participates; thus ethnographers help to construct the observations that become their data”. Powdermaker (1966, p.19) defines this as a process of systematically “stepping in and out of society”, where it is essential for the researcher to continually involve and detach from the contexts they are studying. Luttrell (2000) also emphasises the importance of

reflexivity in naming the tensions, contradictions and power imbalances a researcher encounters and naming these, rather than eliminating or ignoring them. This auto-ethnographic and

reflexive research process underlines the presence of existing theoretical positions or bias in the researcher (Reeves et.al., 2008, p.512). It also fits with Timmermans and Tavory’s (2012) assertion that abductive analysis should be used to construct empirically based theory.

Timmermans and Tavory (2012, p.180) describe abductive analysis as “a qualitative data analysis approach aimed at generating creative and novel theoretical insights through a dialectic of cultivated theoretical sensitivity and methodological heuristics…rather than setting all preconceived theoretical ideas aside during the research project, researchers should enter the field with the deepest and broadest theoretical base possible and develop their theoretical repertoires throughout the research process…instead of theories emerging from the data, new concepts are developed to account for puzzling empirical materials”. Timmermans and Tavory (2012, p.176) highlight the importance of using careful methodological data analysis and explain that grounded theory methods in induction help abductive analysis by deepening our perceptions, allowing us to “see the phenomenon in socially interesting ways”.

I used abductive analysis to develop a new theoretical framework. This approach values the production of theory based on surprising research evidence which is generated by investigating non-linear interconnection, and the plurality and complexity of the data, which can be mapped and connected in different ways. My interview transcripts held multiple layers of codes (or meanings) and often this coding was repeated across multiple sources. As I re-read the

transcripts I became deeply familiar with the evidence, connecting codes in a myriad of possible themes. I used my whiteboard and visual systems maps from HyperRESEARCH to visualise the systemic patterns raised by the grounded theory data analysis process.

The primary themes within my research findings were used to develop theories about violence and self-determined development. In Chapters Seven and Eight I detail my research findings and explore the theoretical insights developed from this abductive research process. The ethnographic method used in Chapters Seven and Eight prioritises the Indigenous voice. Direct quotes are analysed contextually, and they are sequenced to build the theoretical framework.

2.3.2.2

Grounded theory

Abduction uses the grounded theory approach developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) to code qualitative data using systematic procedures of coding schemes and heuristic principles. My eighty-six field interviews ranged between thirty minutes to three hours, covering a wide range of topics, and to manage the large and diverse data set I required qualitative research software. I used HyperRESEARCH, a computer-assisted qualitative software tool. HyperRESEARCH differs from other qualitative software in that the primary unit of analysis and comparison is the case. In line with a grounded theory model, I built each case according to the key themes emerging from the data. In HyperRESEARCH, each case is linked to any number of empirical sources e.g. transcripts, and each source is linked to different cases via codes (a word or two that describes the significance of the text).

In line with a grounded theory approach I built the key themes and coded them before I

analysed the data. Grounded theory uses three types of coding: open, axial and selective coding (Emerson, 1983, p.50). I used all three during my data analysis. Open coding is the “process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.61). To do this I examined each source document (interview transcript) for key concepts or ideas that were related to the six key research questions. I gave these initial ideas ‘codes’ and highlighted them in the relevant text. This process is time-consuming and necessitated detailed textual analysis.

The open coding process identified a large number of codes (ninety two), and it was necessary to break down these codes. As I proceeded through iterations of reading and coding the transcribed interviews, I used a process of axial coding to reduce the initial codes and where repetition occurred, clustered them into primary and secondary code groups. Axial coding is a “set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding by making connections between categories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.96). For example, links between

self-determination and independence also connected themes of power, ownership and decision- making.

Throughout the data analysis process I used selective coding to link primary and secondary categories, which is “the process of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further

refinement and development” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.116). From this process emerged three primary themes or cases: culture, power and relationships (see in CAPITALS in Table 2). Under the three themes are the primary code groups (see in bold in Table 2) and the secondary code groups (in italics in Table 2). The process of selective coding highlighted that the three primary themes are interconnected in multiple and overlapping ways.

Table 2: Cases and primary and secondary code groups used

CULTURE POWER RELATIONSHIPS

Identity Definitions of Indigenous Maubere Kinship/family/clan Land/place Belonging Gender Youth Indigenous conflict transformation Umu-lulik Law – justice Matrilineal / patrilineal Peace Peacebuilding Conflict analysis/sensitivity Na he biti bo’ot

Conflict – conflict trigger Fragility – fragile state Security – stability Systems – failure Sacred knowledge/ information Decision-making Understanding culture Tradition

Working with context - targeting History – historical experience Leadership Co-option Elites Corruption Expectations – entitled Hierarchy

Political parties – politicians Responsibility Informing – socialising Aid effectiveness Duplication Accountability Coordination/planning / prioritising Misaligned development Monitoring and evaluation Sustainability Governance Decentralisation Economy Education Health

Funding / budget / money Recruitment – employment Unemployment

Institutional strengthening

Participation

Rural – urban divide Building relationships Cooperate – collective – together Dependency Insider / outsider Indonesian occupation Portuguese colonialism UN administration NGO – non-state actor Australia Churches – faith Self-determination Independence Indigenous internationalism The Declaration Nation-building State building Shared vision Unity Respect Trust Staff turnover Timing Flexible Listening

Language issues / Tetum Ethics – morals – attitudes

Choice Consent Consultation Confidence / self-esteem Assumptions Human rights Incentives Capacity building

Human resources – capital Ownership