DATA ANALYSIS - METHODOLOGY 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.1 INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.6 DATA ANALYSIS

4.6.1 Use and adaptation of Grounded Theory

Glaser and Strauss developed grounded theory (GT) in sociological research in order

“generate general categories and their properties for general and specific situations and problems” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 30). Grounded theorists see generated theory as constantly developing, and it is the deductions that are made from the emerging theory that inform the next theoretical sampling, in an iterative process. Glaser and Strauss (1967) were clear that it was not possible to know in advance what would emerge from the data, and what hypotheses could be made: this could only happen through the process of data collection and analysis. By allowing concepts and theories to emerge first, the researcher can remain more faithful to the data rather than forcing it to fit existing theories. Glaser and Strauss argue that the aim is to progressively build up from substantive to formal theory through comparative analysis. This generates conceptual categories and their properties, which is followed by identification of systematic relationships between them (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp.35-36).

Through direct gathering of data, each level of data collection and analysis informs the theoretical sampling for the next level. They argue that many studies will be needed, in

opposition to the logico-deductive approach aimed at testing hypotheses through single studies.

I too wanted to remain close to the data, to avoid making assumptions about the meanings and importance of young people’s happiness. However, my approach to data analysis is informed by GT, rather than a traditional GT study. It was not my intention to develop an overarching theory of children’s happiness: this was beyond the scope of this study.

Nonetheless, I hoped to go some way to address the imbalance in current children’s happiness research in which young people’s own perspectives are not fully heard, and to provide insights into the meaning and importance of happiness. Initially, I followed GT as described by Glaser and Strauss, trying to understand my categories and the concepts that underpinned them, asking myself questions such as “What am I seeing?” “Does what I am identifying belong to that category?” However, I soon began to question the process. For example, there were already potentially many “properties” to a potential category of “ideas of what happiness is” (see below) after coding only six questionnaires. How would my

categories align? Furthermore, because I only had one study in two phases, continued iterative theoretical sampling was not possible. I found that there had been developments to grounded theory, in particular constructivist grounded theory by Kathy Charmaz, which aimed to take into account methodological developments of the latter part of the twentieth century and early 2000s.

Like Glaser and Strauss’s approach, Charmaz’s grounded theory is influenced by symbolic interactionism, “pragmatism informed symbolic interactionism, a theoretical perspective that assumes society, reality, and self are constructed through interaction and thus rely on

language and communication. This perspective assumes that interaction is inherently interpretive and addresses how people create, enact, and change meanings and

actions…Symbolic interactionism assumes that people can and do think about their lives and

actions rather than respond mechanically to stimuli” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 9). Understanding meaning-making and acknowledging how people construct, interact with and interpret their world resonated with what I wanted to uncover from my data.

The Charmaz version of GT is different from that of Glaser and Strauss in how it views the role and position of the researcher in relation to the data. Whereas traditional GT sees the discovery of theory from the data as distinct from the researcher, constructivist grounded theory integrates the researcher fully in this process, in their interactions with the world, people, data and analysis: “We construct our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives and research practices” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 17). In thinking about my role as a researcher, and in line with the importance of reflexivity to Childhood Studies, constructivist grounded theory seemed more appropriate than its initial form.

There are still commonalities among the several versions of GT, including between that of Charmaz and the influential version presented by Corbin and Strauss (2008). These include the simultaneous, iterative process of data collection and analysis; analysis that concentrates on actions and processes, rather than attitudes and structures; a comparative approach; the use of data to inform the development of conceptual categories; and systematic analysis aimed at producing analytic categories. If research has these features, it can be classed as a Grounded Theory study (Charmaz, 2014, p. 15).

In reflecting on the constructivist influences on Grounded Theory (e.g. those developed by Charmaz), Corbin, writing a personal reflection on her research thinking, (2008, pp.8-12) suggests that these constructions can then become knowledge, which can be shared, reviewed, and are still open to change. Tolerating ambiguity is integral to the qualitative nature of both Strauss and Corbin’s, and Charmaz’s versions of Grounded Theory. Because

the world is a complex place with complex actions and interactions, methodologies

attempting to explain these will therefore also have to be complex, according to Strauss and Corbin (2008, p.8). Experiences are situated and contingent, and therefore analysis should explain processes affecting people’s experiences. All experiences are located within wider social and cultural events and perspectives. Strauss and Corbin maintain some of the traditional GT principles in abstracting concepts from data in order to form the basis of analysis.

Strauss and Corbin (2008) acknowledge that methods constantly change and adapt, and it is increasingly common to combine a range of methods when analysing data; even proponents of a particular method revise and adapt their method in response to new ideas. Juliet Corbin writes with regard to formalizing a method of Grounded Theory, such as Corbin and Strauss set out in their book, “will not solve every methodological problem or respond to every contemporary philosophical argument” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 9). Nonetheless, the importance of abstracting theoretical concepts from the data is non-negotiable for Corbin.

Corbin argues that it is these concepts, or “findings” which inform understanding, knowledge and discussion (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 12).

Whilst I have found concepts very useful in most of my analysis, sometimes I found the process of developing them too rigid. In trying to analyse everything as a “concept”, I felt that I was in danger of missing some wider point or narrative that was being made by the participants, something implicit which was emerging as important to the young people in my study. As Corbin herself notes in her reflection, “I want to emphasize that techniques and procedures are tools, not directives. No researcher should become so obsessed with following a set of coding procedures that the fluid and dynamic nature of qualitative analysis is lost”

(Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 12). At times I experienced tension between coding and being sensitive to the data. Corbin and Strauss are also clear that theory development should be at

the heart of grounded theory. This has been contested by Childhood Studies researchers, such as Prout and James: “We turn to the importance of empirical studies of childhood…we believe it would be a mistake to see the way forward only in terms of theoretical

development. Well conducted empirical studies…are essential counterparts to theoretical work” (Prout & James, 2015, pp. 24-26). Corbin and Strauss (2008, pp. 53-54) have responded in acknowledging that ‘theory’ has fallen out of favour in preference to “lived experience” and “narrative stories” but argue that theory development is still important for explanation and development of knowledge. Other researchers setting out to use GT have also reflected on difficulties of strictly following this method. For example, Bailey and Jackson have written about their struggles with adopting specific qualitative methods that adequate allow for researchers “to capture the rich insights of participants” (Bailey &

Jackson, 2003, p. 57). In using grounded theory initially in their study of home-making in lesbian couples, they experienced difficulty in getting to a “coalescence of a theoretical construct”: “Beyond the first stage of coding (using Strauss and Corbin’s method) we were concerned that we were already losing the uniqueness of each of our interviewees”. They found the process of GT frustrating as it lost a sense of how participants portrayed their stories, and fractured the data. As I have described, I too experienced similar concerns at times. I have therefore used GT methods broadly and flexibly, as I outline below. I am interested in uncovering meanings. I have been systematic, questioning and rigorous, sometimes following the development of theoretical categories and their properties, which I think of as their qualities, and sometimes revealing the young people’s narratives. I have combined within and cross-case analysis, enabling me to document both actions and processes of young people’s happiness and patterns of comparison and difference in their narratives of what happiness meant for them and how important happiness is.

86 4.6.2 Questionnaire Analysis

Initial analysis involved two readings of the questionnaires, and noting my thoughts, decisions and questions.

First reading

In the first reading, there were several questionnaires that formed what I came to think of as a

‘group’ of five boys, aged 15, from year 10, who used street slang/urban talk in their happiness maps. I needed to understand what the slang refers to, and made a note of everything that I was unsure of. The Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/) was very useful in this respect. For example, one of these questionnaires included the following phrases, previously unknown to me:

“Barber…shape up cuzzz!” The Urban Dictionary definition of “Shape Up” is “To fix up your hairline, on the back, or side of your head. Also the front if you want it.”

“Crep” The Urban Dictionary definition of “Creps” is “Good looking trainers, likely to be wanted by rudeboys.”

I realised the much stylised words that the group of boys were using were image related (particularly to haircuts) and a certain way of writing about girls, and sexual language describing girls, for example “Galdem”, “Nips” and “Slits”.

At this stage, although this group were very interesting, including the names that three of them had decided to call themselves on the questionnaires, I did not want to go any further in analysing the data from a “group perspective” as I need to have more of an open mind at this very early stage.

I began to make a note of potential themes emerging like relationships, sports, activities, food, sleeping, effort in happiness, self-management. I also noted points to be returned to in more detail in second readings, such as:

What makes you happy doesn’t always…happiness has contingencies?

I noted the breadth of topics and subjects included in the questionnaires, from things affecting mood, to the weather, experiences, faith, and things that were enjoyed like music: many different aspects of happiness. I also realised that some people who had indicated that they would like to take part in the next phase of the study had not made themselves identifiable.

I began to wonder whether it was predominantly girls, maybe older girls who were engaging in a deeper level of reflection in their thinking about happiness: considering how things or people that were associated with their happiness weren’t always conducive to this, that sometimes they contributed to unhappiness or stress, that happiness could be contingent and I wrote this down as something to come back to. I thought about how I would use pseudonyms.

There were some questions with these too, for example, what should I do with pseudonyms for young people who have given themselves nicknames?

Second reading

In the second reading, I thought that I needed to start with the first “level” of data, and that this should not be read in the light of identification with a particular individual. I wanted to analyse for themes across the data, as well as analyse within individual data but it was not possible to do these simultaneously.

I turned only to the page in each questionnaire where the respondents wrote things that they associated with happiness, deliberately not looking at the individual’s personal information, as I didn’t want to be focussed at this stage on matching up what is said to the person, in

order to try to be as neutral as possible when thinking about the themes. I know that when I come to a few of the questionnaires that I am more familiar with (e.g. the group of the boys mentioned above) that this wouldn’t always be possible, but I wanted to try as much as possible to be free of other influences. For this reason, I turned the pile of questionnaires upside down so that I would not be working through them in the same order as the first reading, as it is too easy to become familiar with individuals and questionnaires in a certain order, and this can affect your thought processes and attention to the data.

I decided that I would write down everything in long hand, producing a list that contained all the words and phrases the young people associated with happiness. I needed to give myself time to think about what I was doing. With this in mind, I also decided to do the qualitative analysis before the quantitative analysis as I wanted to remain open to possibilities of interpretation: the grounded theory approach aims to avoid forcing data into existing formal theories, instead allowing concepts and categories to emerge from the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 34), which aligned with my research design and aims.

I was struck as I was writing how often food, family, friends and music came up. Although I was operating within a broad grounded theory approach, I was aware of a lot of literature on young people’s happiness, and realised that there were some new themes emerging in my data. Awareness of existing literature, and researchers’ past and present engagement with knowledge and perspectives, is central to how constructivist grounded theory is different from the original grounded theory of Glaser and Strauss (Charmaz, 2014, p. 17). I was also struck by just how extensive and varied were the aspects of happiness mentioned in the data.

After this second reading of the questionnaires, I felt ready to set up my project for further coding and analysis in a qualitative software programme. I used NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 10, 2012.

I entered all respondents into NVivo and created demographic classifications. I transcribed all questionnaires into individual Word documents and imported all questionnaires into NVivo. I then began the process of coding the questionnaires.

Initial coding

Initial coding of the questionnaires related to questions that I asked myself of what I was seeing in the data. Firstly, how is happiness understood, how is happiness perceived, what ideas are expressed about what happiness is? These were very broad and diverse; the

questionnaires generated answers that often consisted of lists. Coding these revealed that the most frequently mentioned things were family members, friends, activities/time use/sport, food, music, pets and animals.

Secondly, I identified that in section three of the questionnaire, where young people wrote descriptions and further reflections on their happiness maps, there were some themes

emerging: how feelings change; changing relationships affect a change in happiness; needing to be in the right mood for some things (that are enjoyed) to make you happy- mood

contingent happiness; how something/someone that is associated with happiness can also be associated with unhappiness; happiness can be contingent on people, places, and time. These were all coded as initial concepts. I also noted the language used in the happiness maps, which encompassed being both happy and unhappy.

Young people often included their experiences of happiness in the questionnaires.

Experiences were frequently denoted by verbs used as opposed to nouns, as they were often an activity. For example, "spending time with my mum", "reading". Some nouns coded as concepts could also be describing experiences for the respondent- this was difficult to tell sometimes if there was only one word.

Lastly, I noticed that sometimes young people occasionally included a future event, like going to their school prom, or a gap year after school finished. There were also choices to be made, or a perceived consequence of an action (for example, enjoying food but feeling bad if they ate too much). Sometimes these were within the happiness map (the concentric circles denoting most important- least important); sometimes these were within the reflection part of the happiness map (section 3), and where the young person was thinking about how the map represents what makes them happy.

This initial coding led to follow-up areas that would be explored further in the next phase of data collection. There were questions that had arisen from the questionnaire data that I wanted to discuss in more depth in the discussion groups and interviews (see Discussion Groups above. I also wanted to explore the most frequently mentioned things from the

questionnaires as outlined above: Family members; friends; food; music; pets/animals; sports.

4.6.3 Representation of Young People’s Voices

James (2007, p. 261) warns that it is easy to claim to include “children’s voices”, but children still continue to find their everyday voices silenced or ignored, or where they are given an opportunity to express their views, these are ignored. There is a danger in

simplifying what is voiced by children: mediation and translation of children’s voices into simpler representations can alter both the original conveyed reality of children’s lives, and also how it is received as a social construction. Childhood studies researchers and children’s practitioners should make it clear as to “whose voices are being represented and by whom?

Why are they being represented? And finally, what implications are there from the form these take?” (James, 2007, p. 267). When there is talk of the “child’s voice” in research, it very easily implies identification with and representation of children, and can also be a means by

which research includes marginalised groups. It can be questioned whether the “child’s voice” is given a meaningful position in such research, because of adult decisions that are made regarding the processes of how their voices are heard, and what is included of

children’s voices from what is recorded (I’Anson, 2013, p. 109). The researcher’s choice of quotations from children will be made to support her or his line of argument, and these choices should be open to scrutiny. Bucknall (2014) writes that as young people are rarely involved in data analysis, it is therefore a responsibility of the researcher to ensure that that young people’s voices are represented in the analysis and interpretation of the data in a way that moves beyond notional. This does not necessarily mean that research that is not carried out by children themselves is in any way inferior, as methods should be suitable for the research task, but “all research has to be acknowledged as a process of representation, whether it is carried out by adults or by children” (James, 2007, p. 268).

The interview or discussion is an interactive process that is subject to social influences.

Therefore children’s voices and perspectives in research are “standpoints” from which the research begins, and the researcher tries to understand where the children are coming from and to recognise that their positions change through time in the same way as those of adults

In document What Counts as Happiness for Young People in the Second Decade of the 21st Century? An Exploration (Page 89-106)