Data analysis: grounded theory

The general strategy of qualitative data analysis employed in this research is seen as grounded theory. This is defined as ‘theory that [i]s derived from data, systematically gathered and analyzed through the research process’, which emphasises theory generated from data collection and analysis.257

Although it is discussed as a method of data analysis in this section, it can also be considered as a strategy of data collection as it involves a complete process from gathering data to analysing data.258

That is to say, grounded theory is an approach guiding data collection and analysis, which involves a process for generating theory from empirical data in social sciences.259

Concepts and categories are the key elements of grounded theory and it has several tools,

257 _{Bryman (n 47).} 258 _Ibid.

such as theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation, which have been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, to guide the generation of concepts and categories. There are some characteristics of this approach that need to be emphasised. The first point worthy of note is that it involves an element of iteration. As is identified in the literature, grounded theory refers to a ‘circular process rather than a linear sequence of steps’.260

That is to say, the process of data collection and analysis needs to be repeated. In practices, this means that data is gathered from some participants at the outset, and analysis of this data is then conducted in order to refine and revise the questions as well as approach more eligible participants. Another round of data collection and analysis starts afterwards. In terms of this research, it adopts a grounded theory approach to collect and analyse data. At the outset of the research, roughly two participants were approached in the UK and China respectively to explore why they became involved with GE or not. Transcripts and analysis of the two interviews were then completed in order to revise the interview questions and identify who else was required as respondents to finally generate concepts and categories on the causes of their participation. That is to say, data analysis started after some data were collected and then shaped the next step of data collection based on the implications of the previous data. After this process, roughly two more ENGOs were approached as respondents and they were asked revised questions to see whether themes could be identified in terms of the reasons for their involvement or non-involvement with GE. This circular process was similarly carried out in the UK and China until reaching a point where concepts and categories could be generated. This raises another important point of grounded theory: saturation. It refers to a point where no more themes or elements are

identified to fit in with the concepts or categories in terms of the coding of data, and a point where no new data is needed to formulate theory with regard to data collection. Therefore it emphasises the stage where a repetition of outcomes emerges.261

The issue of saturation has been discussed earlier in sampling strategy and sample size.

There is the issue of constant comparison in grounded theory, which is regarded as the core element by Glaser and Strauss.262

It suggests that researchers compare bits of data so that categories can be identified, and then compare categories, notably paying attention to contrasts and connections between categories, in different settings.263

In terms of my research, it involves the core element of comparison, as it is a comparative research design to compare NGO participation in GE between the UK and China, which is not only cross-national but also cross-organisational. In terms of data and categories, raw data was analysed and compared to form different categories, notably gathering data to form important variables concerning why they become involved with GE or not. Different variables or categories were then compared within each country to identify which elements or categories play an important role in determining their involvement or non-involvement with GE. Finally, categories regarding the causes of involvement or non-involvement, which were generated from data in each country, were compared to achieve a cross-national comparison between the UK and China.

Comparison includes a key process of coding, especially axial coding (explained further

261 _{Carey (n 192).}

262 _{Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research}

(London: Aldine Transaction 1967).

below). Within this strategy of data analysis, coding has been employed as the key process to explore the potential theoretical significance when reviewing the transcripts.264

It is regarded as the first step of generating theory and can be distinguished in three phases in grounded theory: open coding requiring researchers to be open-minded to break down, compare, categorise data and generate as many new ideas as necessary; axial coding aims to make connections between categories by putting data together in new ways; and selective coding emphasising the most common codes.265

In terms of my research, the process of data analysis follows these three stages: first, according to the transcripts, I examined the responses of each respondent carefully in order to find useful information as much as possible, and then identified repetitive themes, regarding why they became involved in GE or not, as codes which were grouped into categories later on. Second, based on already formed categories, I considered whether some categories could be linked together into a new category. For example, I found that many respondents in the UK mentioned an important element of resources in different ways. Some stated in effect that as they lack resources, such as money and time, they prefer to engage with areas where they can be more effective or more competitive rather than the area of GE. Others simply mentioned ‘resources’ by just stating that ‘they don’t have enough money’. Therefore, after reconsidering the code of ‘resource’, I grouped the latter response into a code of ‘material resource’ and categorised the former response into a code of ‘strategy’. The last step was identifying the most common codes, which were discussed as the most important variables in chapter 8.

264 _Ibid.

Another important issue requiring clarification concerns the point that grounded theory, after decades of development, involves many different approaches. According to Dey, ‘there is no such thing as grounded theory if we mean by that a single, unified methodology as we have different interpretations of grounded theory’. 266

In the literature, a distinction between ‘a full grounded theory’ and ‘grounded theory-lite’ has been identified with the former requiring a full and complete process ranging from theoretical sampling to develop a theory while the latter includes employing the techniques of grounded theory to develop concepts and categories as well as connections between categories, but not a theory.267

The latter is the most frequently adopted strategy nowadays. My research, as with most research employing grounded theory, aims to develop categories and identify connections between categories by using the techniques of grounded theory. This interpretation of grounded theory is very similar to the analysis approach of thematic analysis. It aims to ‘construct an index of central themes and subthemes, which are then represented in a matrix for ordering and synthesising data’.268

From the definition, it can be seen that thematic analysis also involves coding and generating patterns and categories.269

Themes are sometimes considered as codes or categories in the literature.270

However, the difference between grounded theory and thematic analysis is that grounded theory is a methodology including a set of procedures, not just a method as with thematic analysis.271

Therefore, although they have many 266 _{Ian Dey, ‘Grounded Theory’ in Clive Seale and others (eds), Qualitative Research Practice (London: Sage} Publications 2007). 267 _{Nick Pidgeon and Karen Henwood, ‘Using Grounded Theory In Psychological Research’ in Nicky Hayes (ed),} Doing Qualitative Analysis In Psychology (viii edn, Hove, England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis 1997). 268 _{Bryman (n 47).} 269 _{Carey (n 192).} 270 _{Bryman (n 47).} 271 _{Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practice Guide Through Qualitative Analysis (David Silverman} ed, CA: Sage 2006).

similarities, grounded theory-lite is employed in this thesis to indicate a set of procedures including theoretical frameworks (ontological and epistemological positions), data collection and analysis.