Data analysis procedures

This section is primarily about thematic analysis and the step-by-step process of how the data was analysed, which begins with the transcription, all the way up until the presentation of findings. This was done as it is essential to be clear regarding the manner in which the entire analysis was carried out.

4.9.1 Thematic analysis

Thematic analysis was adopted to analyse my data as it enabled me to identify, analyse, and report the language use patterns of East Malaysians in Borneo. Among some of the advantages of this method of analysis are it can provide a thick

description of data, it can highlight the similarities and differences between various ethnic groups (Braun and Clarke, 2006), and it also allows categories to emerge from the data (Saldaña, 2009).

64

My study takes an inductive approach, which means that it is data-driven and the themes are dependent on what the data reveals (this links to ‘interpretivism’ in 4.4.1, and ‘ethnography’ in 4.5). Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase analysis guide is used as a basis for my data analysis process, which consists of five steps and are described as follows.

The first step involved getting familiar with the data that had been gathered, and to do so, the audio-recordings of conversations were transcribed. The data was then read through once, and re-read carefully multiple times, as I highlighted any striking switches. Based on the following extract, they could be (1) the alternation from one language to another, as demonstrated by H who used Mandarin in line 1, and switched to English for “box” in line 4; (2) when a marked choice is made, like how Y used Mandarin in line 7 to respond to H, instead of English, which he is

accustomed to using. That is to say, the switches looked at are not parts of speech in particular, neither is the focus on specific intersentential or intrasentential switches.

65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 H: Ni zhe dao jiu hao, hai yao zhe yang pao.1 2 (Good that you know, still want to run like this.)2

3 Y: But this year, do you know how heavy is that box that I had to carry 4 down from my apartment.

5 H: Max de box ha? 6 (Max’s)

7 Y: Hmph!

8 H: Ni dai ci xiang hui lai ni? Ni zao shang dai ci xiang hui lai?

9 (How many boxes did you bring back? How many boxes did you bring 10 back this morning?)

11 Y: San xiang. 12 (Three boxes.) 13 H: Ci k–kilo? 14 (How many)

15 Y: Uh… qi shi, liu shi ba ah. 16 (70, 68.)

17 H: Shi meh? 18 (Really?) 19 Y: Yeap.

20 H: Where is the boxes now? I didn’t see. 21 Y: Outside, outside.

After that, I considered each switch based in its context, and by utilising what I already know of language use in my community, I stated my rationale for my participants’ language choice in the comment boxes in the margins. The line

numbers for the highlighted words and phrases were then written next to the names of the respective speakers in my note book as they were items that required

clarification and confirmation from my participants. Their ‘voice’ is vital in providing invaluable insights on bilinguals’ language behaviour, and could also increase the validity of my findings.

Following this, the list of circumstances was produced with the help of my participants. When the transcript was sent to my participants, they were told to think

1 _{Italics - Mandarin} 2 _{(Parentheses) - MT}

66

carefully about their reasons for moving between languages, and that they could accept or reject the reasons which I provided. Upon the return of the transcript, I meticulously perused each of the reasons, and in instances where explanations were given by my participants, they were summarised into a concise phrase. It is very important to pay full attention to the participants’ explanations in order not to misinterpret them, and to make sure nothing was missed, as their justifications are not always expressed in a straightforward manner, and at times may consist of two or more conditions.

The third step was where the different circumstances of language use, which act as the primary ‘codes’, were organised into possible themes. In coming up with the appropriate themes, I compiled all the circumstances in a list. With the list, I was able to look at each circumstance individually and decide on the theme it falls under.

Next, the themes that were identified were reviewed and refined. I started by placing the circumstances under their relevant themes, and checked to make sure that the circumstances fitted well with the main theme. As for themes that were redundant, they were either merged with a similar theme or omitted completely. At first, I inferred seven themes – habit, cause and effect, convenience, functional, linguistic repertoire, efficiency, accommodation and affiliation. However, after some scrutiny, ‘functional’ was taken out because all the conditions were in fact, included in this category. Thereafter, ‘linguistic repertoire’ was also discarded as translanguaging could be placed under the ‘habit’ category, considering how it is the normal mode of communication for bilingual speakers.

The last step involves writing up the report. This is where the complicated story of my data was narrated to the readers so that they know and understand some of the language practices of East Malaysians, and see the importance in conducting this study.

The principal reason why thematic analysis is better suited for my research in relation to approaches such as conversation analysis and grounded research is chiefly due to its flexibility that enables me to adapt it to my ethnographic study and its objectives. Conversation analysis is keen to uncover the structures underlying talk in interaction and how order is achieved through interaction. It is a more rigorous approach that centres on the fine details of talk as it transpires. That said,

67

conversation analysts would take account of details like pauses and emphases which play very important roles in interaction; and look at features such as turn-taking, adjacency pairs, preference organization, and repair. In addition, this form of analysis can be restrictive for two reasons:

1. It is illegitimate to claim to thoroughly understand a culture, which leads to the attribution of motives and meanings.

2. It is contextual in the sense that understanding is located in the sequences of talk. Therefore, unless the added components of the context, like the speakers’ culture and their shared knowledge, are specifically part of the organization of talk, the analyst is refrained from considering them (Bryman, 2012).

Based on the aforementioned, it is clear that conversation analysis is less applicable for my study, as my focus is on what my participants’ say, rather than how they

speak. As for grounded theory, it is useful when ‘there is little extant knowledge of the issue’ (McGhee et al., 2007, p. 339); not to mention, there exists a controversy

concerning the literature review, as to whether it should be done before or after data has been collected (McGhee et al., 2007). My study, however, comprises a

phenomenon that has been widely researched and a practice that is receiving

increased attention. In view of that, I have read up on the subject areas in order to be well-informed about the topics that have been covered, which would help to identify the gap, and allow me to contribute to my field of study.

By using thematic analysis for an ethnographic study, it is vital to have tacit knowledge about the area being studied (Boyatzis, 1998). In this case, there needs to be a good or thorough understanding about Sarawakians and their language backgrounds in order for one to fully comprehend the complexity and uniqueness of the speakers’ language behaviour. Boyatzis (1998) also touched on the issue of reliability, when he mentioned that it is important for researchers to be consistent when it comes to recognizing significant parts of their data and coding. What is more, that consistency should apply to other researchers as well, in the event they carry out the same research. This is where the challenge comes in, especially when it

concerns people and understanding why they do what they do. Thus, unless one is exposed well to the community under study, there is a high chance that he or she will

68

perceive the phenomenon at hand differently, if compared to the observations of the original researcher.

Above all, it is crucial for researchers who are doing ethnographic analysis to ‘tell it like it is’ with a focus on the insider’s point of view, which can be done by being with and talking to the participants; while always bearing in mind to analyse well, tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity that arise in interpretations, and resist the temptation to rush to firm conclusions (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).