Data Analysis

Analysis of field notes and interviews has taken place at different stages throughout data collection. From the start of data collection I engaged in an iterative process of

analysis, in keeping with the ethnographic tradition (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007: 158). This was not a formal process, whereby time was regularly taken in blocks to allow for this; rather it was a constant, informal approach, attempting to manage a balance between time spent in the field and time for other ongoing commitments. I was anxious to spend as much time as possible in the field in the early stages, familiarising myself with the environment and allowing myself to develop relationships. Field notes were written contemporaneously when possible but further notes were added and then typed at the end of each day. Reflective notes were written in addition to this, and after

91 each interview. These were also typed and stored together in a computer software programme, NVivo. In this way much of the early analytical processes took place ‘in the field’ (Oakley, 1994). Through this process of daily transcription I was constantly engaging with the data. I recorded issues which emerged during fieldwork which challenged or raised questions of previously gathered data. This was a constant process whereby I asked questions of myself and the data I was gathering; asking how the situation I was observing was similar or different to previous observations, or brought in issues or questions raised in interviews.

The process of analysis held much in common with the principles or methods of grounded theory. While not following classical grounded theory methods, there were many similarities in approach. Many authors have written about the core concerns of grounded theory and how these have been understood and interpreted in different ways since the publication of Glaser and Strauss’s ‘The Discovery of Grounded Theory’ in 1967 (Charmaz, 2006, Corbin and Strauss, 2008, Glaser and Strauss, 1967, Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). This original construction has been accused of being overly mechanistic, or at least has been interpreted as such: recently authors such as Charmaz, have considered it from a different perspective (Charmaz, 2006). Glaser and Strauss themselves subsequently disagreed about the central assumptions of grounded theory: Strauss in recognising the role of the researcher (and previous experience and

influences) in constructing theory; Glaser in advocating that theory should be generated more independently from the researcher (Charmaz, 2006: 8, Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007: 167). Indeed, while my research followed predominately an inductive process in seeking to generate theory from the data, my previous knowledge, experience and reading made deduction an important aspect in this process as well.

I adopted the perspective of Charmaz in viewing grounded theory methods as ‘principles and practices, not as prescriptions or packages’ (Charmaz, 2006: 9).

Charmaz advocates the use of the tools of grounded theory, while adopting more of the approach of Corbin and Strauss than the classical techniques of Glaser and Strauss. Supervision meetings were of particular importance during fieldwork, during which I would discuss sections of field notes or whole transcripts of interviews with my supervisors. During these meetings I would describe my own impressions and issues which I believed to be emerging from the data and discuss these and develop new ideas

92 to challenge and develop back in the field through observations and interviews. In this way these meetings impacted on my fieldwork and the research developed in different directions through this process.

All written field notes and interview transcripts were transcribed and entered into NVivo, a qualitative software programme to assist with data management. This enabled me to be able to handle the large volume of data generated. The ‘constant comparative method’ was used informally in the field and more formally through the stages of coding to challenge assumptions and ‘taken-for-granted understandings’ (Glaser, 1965, Charmaz, 2006). Following the approach advocated by Charmaz, interview data was coded initially in a line by line fashion; field notes were coded ‘incident by incident’. Six interviews were coded in their entirety line by line; all field notes were coded incident by incident. Initial coding on a line by line basis was difficult to manage and produced an unwieldy coding frame. Codes were reviewed and compared in

supervision meetings to ensure inter-rater reliability. Although I was the only

researcher these discussions were crucial to challenge assumptions and question what I was seeing, throughout the period of fieldwork. Initial codes were then compressed and having generated a coding frame in this way, it was applied to the rest of the interview data. I then engaged in focused coding whereby one codes ‘using the most significant and frequent earlier codes to sift through large amounts of data’(Charmaz, 2006). Through this process I re-examined the data with a view to bringing to the fore those codes which made the most analytical sense. This was strengthened and developed through discussion in supervisory meetings. I took considerable time over this process, being particularly concerned about falling into the pitfalls found at this stage and described by Charmaz:

 Coding at too general a level

 Identifying topics instead of actions and processes

 Overlooking how people construct actions and processes

 Attending to disciplinary or personal concerns rather than participants

 Coding out of context

93 I began analysis whilst still ‘in the field’; because of this I was able to understand and refine these codes as I engaged in ‘theoretical sampling’. As I analysed the data and subsequently collected further data, I was able to test the analysis in an iterative manner. In addition I engaged in memo writing, using various techniques to enhance this such as clustering and free writing (Charmaz, 2006). These memos helped me to consider the data from different perspectives, clarify details within codes, generate new ideas and also direct me towards more theoretical coding by pointing to relationships between the focused codes.

Time invested in this process enabled me to generate robust categories and feel

confident as I reached ‘theoretical sufficiency’. This term, originally used by Dey (Dey, 2007: 257), is distinct from the term ‘theoretical saturation’ which many grounded theorists strive for and attain. Dey challenges the concept of theoretical saturation as he questions the ability to truly ‘saturate’ categories when relying on partial rather than complete coding of a data set. Additionally he argues that saturation relies on the researcher’s assumption, or estimation that categories are fully saturated. Instead he argues that categories are suggested by the data, rather than being assumed to be products of the data (Charmaz, 2006: 114). Data are coded and categories populated to the extent that there are no new categories emerging but this is acknowledged to be on the basis of a partial coding of the data and thus the term ‘theoretical sufficiency’ is a more accurate representation of this process. Data is still comprehensively treated (Silverman, 2010: 280) but the product, I believe, is a more accurate interpretation of what is represented by the data.

The major ‘categories’ suggested by the data were developed at a theoretical level into drafts which have subsequently been worked into the chapters which form the basis of this thesis. This has been an iterative process, with several changes in direction occurring as I analysed the data. Throughout the research process I kept a record of research decisions and thoughts through detailed supervision notes and a research diary. This was stored alongside my data in an NVivo software package, allowing easy access and a clear trail of information. This is important to be able to attend to concerns regarding ‘trustworthiness’.

94