Data analysis

Three data analysis options were originally considered, that of IPA (Smith et al, 2012), Giorgi’s “four stage analysis process” (Giorgi, 1985 p10) and Braun and Clarke’s “6 phase guide to performing thematic analysis” (Braun and Clarke, 2006 p79). IPA was excluded as reflected upon earlier, leaving two other options for consideration. Whilst Braun and Clarke’s approach became the chosen data analysis method for this study as will be discussed later, the reason for excluding Giorgi’s process (Table 3.5) will next be considered.

Table 3.5: Giorgi’s phenomenological psychological four stage data analysis process

(Adapted from Giorgi, 1985)

Read the entire description in order to get a general sense of the whole statement Return to the beginning and read through the text once more with the specific aim of discriminating ‘meaning units’ from within a psychological perspective and with a focus on phenomenon being researched

Examine the meaning units and express the psychological insight contained in them more directly and this is especially true of the “meaning units” most revelatory of the phenomenon under consideration.

Synthesise all the transformed ‘meaning units’ into a consistent statement regarding the subjects experience and this is usually referred to as the structure of the experience.

Giorgi’s approach was not considered compatible to the study because it applied a deep psychological attitude to analysis (Giorgi, 1985, Giorgi, 2009) as a result of his experiences as a psychophysicist, human psychologist and scientific psychologist, specialising in experimental psychology (Giorgi 2002) and the complexity of it did not match with the quality and diversity of the data or the research topic. Giorgi suggests that researcher’s needs to analyse the description of accounts given by participants with sensitivity and affinity of their own discipline (Giorgi, 2002) and as my background is that of social work, Braun and Clarke’s thematic approach

resonated with the practical social work role. Additionally, whereas Giorgi’s process

considers more face to face interview data, Braun and Clarke’s approach was considered more flexible as my data included visual (BSL, Deafblind manual alphabet), spoken and email data (see Tables 3.3 and 3.4). A more detailed explanation of the reasons for selecting Braun and Clarke’s approach to data analysis will next be discussed.

Thematic analysis was originally developed by Gerald Holton, a physicist and historian of sciences in the 1970s (Merton, 1975), and later developed by Braun and Clarke (2006). Braun and Clarke suggested “thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (2006 p79). Braun and Clarke’s (2006) set of procedures for analysis also contribute to understanding various opinions, ideas, perceptions and experiences which contribute to the drawing of themes from data. Whilst Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2013) guide to performing thematic analysis could also have a psychological perspective as the authors are psychologists, it was considered to be compatible with the quality and diversity of the data, it would be contributory in promoting a transparent and rigorous approach, it is more neutral and has a ’toolbox’ approach. There were a number of reasons for adopting this approach, firstly this guide offers various pattern based analytical methods to draw themes from the data (Braun and Clarke, 2013). For example, they consider inductive thematic analysis where analysis is “not shaped by existing theory”; theoretical thematic analysis which is “guided by existing theory”;

experiential thematic analysis which “focuses on participants’ standpoint”, their experiences and how they make sense of these; and constructionist thematic analysis which focus on “how topics are constructed” (Braun and Clarke, 2013 p175).

For this study experiential thematic analysis was selected as this was compatible with descriptive phenomenology in which participant experiences are central. It also

concentrates on where participants see themselves and how they construct and make sense of their experiences (Braun and Clarke, 2013), which were central to this study and compatible to the paradigmatic positioning.

Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach is also compatible with the sample size (twenty participants) and it clearly outlines a set of procedures for analysis (Table 3.6). The thematic approach of capturing ”something important about the data in relation to the research question” with a level of representations of “patterned response or meaning within the data set” (Braun and Clarke, 2006 p82) were integral to the study. The researcher took an “active role” (Braun and Clarke, 2013 p225) to developing themes from coded data and creating potential patterns to produce new knowledge, as opposed to a passive role which seeks to “identify something that already exists” (Braun and Clarke, 2013 p225). The approach was also considered compatible to the research topic interview questions and data responses because participant responses shaped themes to enable the data to relate their experiences and tell their story. Table 3.6 outlines Braun and Clarke’s guide to performing thematic analysis.

Table 3.6: Braun and Clarke’s 6 phase guide to performing thematic analysis (Summarised from Braun and Clarke, 2006)

Familiarising yourself with the data: Transcribing data, reading and re-reading the data, noting down themes and ideas that initially arise

Generating initial codes: Coding interesting facets of the data in a systematic way across the entire data collection process, collating data that is relevant to each code

Searching for themes: Collating codes into prospective themes, collecting all of the data relevant to each prospective theme

Review themes: Check if the themes that arose initially are compatible to entire data set themes. Generate a thematic map of analysis

Defining and naming themes: Continue to analyse, in so doing refine the specifics of each theme that has arisen. Look at the picture that is emerging from the analysis and name the themes

Producing the report: Final chance for analysis. Relate analysis back to the research question and to the literature review to enable production of a report of your data analysis

Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2013) was used with descriptive phenomenology to enable participant experiences to be taken as a given and themes from the data drawn to ensure participants’ experiences were reflected in the findings (see Appendices, C, D, E, F, G, H, I). Four themes were identified, which will be presented in Chapter 4.

Van Manen (1984) highlighted “phenomenological themes are the structures of experience” (p59). However van Manen advises “a thematic phrase only serves to point at, to allude to, or hint at, an aspect of the phenomenon” (1998 p60). So it is essential when using this method of data analysis to also have a broader

philosophical perspective to data collated, to enable this, bracketing or epoche (Seamon 1979) was adopted as previously discussed. Ethical considerations will next be discussed.