Data Analysis

The data collected from the interview was analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). A grounded theory approach emphases an interactional approach between data collection and analysis. Analysis began as soon as the first portion of data was collected and continued until the end of the study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The transcribed

interview data was analyzed using Corbin and Strauss’ line-by-line coding technique and the constant comparative method.

The line-by-line coding process involved reading through each sentence from the interview closely looking for text which centered upon the purpose of the study. All incidents noted in the interview as well as incidents that appeared to contribute to the aim of the study were labelled with a code. A sample of the raw data and the initial code is represented in Table 3-2. All incidents that were noted and grouped into codes were compared to other incidents within the text (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) necessitates a reading of all data recorded in the interviews and comparing the data to uncover similar occurrences or events present in the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The constant comparison approach helps to guard the researcher against bias as it requires repeatedly reviewing the grouping of the data and it helps ensure similar incidents are grouped together (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This method continues until no new information surfaces and the collection of more data would not add further depth to the categories.

The codes were generated through a thoughtful process of asking questions of the data and comparing the context of the data provided by each participant to inform the researcher of the intricacies of the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The question informing the coding process, “How does this statement describe the shift in occupational identity?” was designed to facilitate a greater understanding of the research question.

Table 3-2 Sample Interview Quotes and Initial Codes

Raw Data Code

“You have to deal with things in a snap instant and I couldn’t deal with that I’d be like duh, like an idiot” (RP)

Change in speed in the work place after injury based on personal reflection

“I didn’t want to come (to the center), I didn’t want to be branded a freak” (AE).

Conscious of the stigma associated with having a brain injury avoided the center for brain injury survivors

“We (brain injury survivors) do yard work around the city and landscaping” (JS)

Trying new occupations with other brain injury survivors

Bearing in mind the study question during the coding process, the point of reflection rested upon what each participant was saying regarding their role as an occupational being before and after their injury. Reflective thought was also focused upon what points were the participants attempting to convey concerning their transition into unpaid or paid work or school. Remaining cognisant to the research question during the line-by-line coding was an attempt by the

researcher to begin to uncover the concepts that may impact upon shifts in occupational identity. Throughout the coding process, theoretical memos (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) were used to keep track of emerging categories and record potential theories to explain the progression of a shift in occupational identity. The memos became a vital component to writing the process underscoring the shift in occupational identity. Initial codes were grouped into sub-categories to enhance an understanding of the underlying process. Sub-categories were reviewed and grouped into categories to develop a deeper conceptual understanding of the underlying process. The sub- categories and categories were supported by the quotes of the participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The categories tended to be more abstract than the codes developed as is a natural occurrence in grounded theory analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Table 3-3 depicts a sample transition from the raw data, to code, to subcategory to category.

Categories emerged from the descriptive data within the codes and were either repeatedly present throughout the data or absent from the remaining interviews. Categories that that were repeatedly present throughout the data were related to subcategories during axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) and were used to generate hypotheses about the data.

Table 3-3 Analysis from Raw Data to Category

Raw Data Code Sub Category Category

“I couldn’t work long hours or anything (after injury) maybe about 4 hours a day was my limit” (MJ) “I see myself as a less capable worker” (MJ)

Noting an increase in physical and/or cognitive fatigue

Change in belief in the ability to do the job properly Returning to previous occupations reflecting on changed abilities Reflecting on changed abilities

Facing the reality of limitations and challenges

“People hear brain injury and a wall goes up” (MJ)

Becoming aware of the negative stigma of having a brain injury

Encountering labels and walls

Grappling with the negative label

“It was like jumping into the frying pan and into the fire...

I thought it was about time to get out” (MJ) “(I worked the) unit at the X (center name). I first worked in the kitchen, landscaping, because I can do it all here” (TL)

Reacting to the changed work environment

Trying new

occupations with other brain injury survivors

Disengaging from occupations Shifting or establishing vocational or occupational repertoires

Disconnecting from one society into another

Theoretical sampling (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) occurred within the data collection phase as the first stage of the coding process unfolded. The circular process of theoretical sampling involved examining the data and deciding what concepts to investigate more thoroughly to evolve any preliminary concepts. New questions were formulated through this process to gather greater conceptual clarity. New questions on emerging concepts were posed to the same

participants in the follow-up interview.

The new data gathered from the second interview were examined utilizing the same coding process and extraction of categories and core phenomena. A new orientation was considered to examine the role of society on shifting occupational identity and how the actions and interactions presented in the interviews impacted occupational identity. The theoretical sampling process occurred until the categories were well developed and further data collection would not result in the generation of greater conceptual clarity (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

Credibility strategies are employed to establish the coherence of the process and to ensure that an interpretation of the data is done in a manner that reflects the participant’s experiences and offers a deep description of the relationships and processes. Corbin and Strauss (1990) offer several questions to help assess the adequacy of the analysis process that is essential to evaluate any grounded theory study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The next section details the questions posed by Corbin and Strauss (1990) and the response to these questions based on the analysis for the current study. Some of the answers provided are brief to avoid unnecessary repetition of material already presented throughout the chapter.