Data Analysis Process

The data analysis process in constructivist grounded theory is highlighted by Charmaz and her colleagues (Morse, Stern, Corbin, Bowers, Clarke & Charmaz, 2009), who said:

“The comparative and interactive nature of grounded theory at every stage of analysis

distinguishes grounded theory from other approaches and makes it an explicitly emergent method” (p. 163). Charmaz also calls for an “immersion” of the data that requires the researchers to include raw data in the continued process of memo writing (Morse et al., p. 526) as a way of preserving the participants’ voices and meanings in the final theoretical outcome (Charmaz, 1995b, 2001).

Some of the key components in constructivist grounded theory data analysis include initial coding, focus coding, memo writing, theoretical sampling, saturation, and discovering the argument (Charmaz, 2006). Coding in qualitative studies generally means naming segments of data with a label that simultaneously categorises, summarises and accounts for each piece of data (Bowker & Star, 1999). Coding, according to Charmaz, is the first step for a researcher when making analytic interpretations and is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain the data (Charmaz, 2006). The constructivist grounded theory coding consists of at least two phases: (a) an initial phase (either word by word or line by line) and (b) a focused phase where the most significant or frequent initial codes are sorted, synthesised, integrated and organised (Charmaz, 2006). There are different approaches to coding as outlined by Mason (1996): literal, interpretive and reflexive. The literal approach is an analytical process that focuses on, for example, the exact use of particular language or grammatical structure (p. 54). The interpretive

approach focuses on the researcher’s effort in attempting to determine meanings from a participant’s account. The reflexive approach pays attention to the researcher’s own

91

contribution to the data analysis process. According to Mason (1996), it is most common for researchers to use combinations of the above approaches, which was how I approached my data, with both interpretive and reflexive outlooks.

During the data analysis stage, I was faced with a decision to code the data manually or to use computer assisted software such as NVivo. There are advantages and disadvantages to both (Welsh, 2002). For this study, I decided to code the data manually rather than using coding software, a decision that I made while translating the transcripts. I believe that initial coding happened simultaneously whilst I was translating

the data at hand. It is understandable that the researcher’s own use of language plays a

crucial role in how coding is conducted and analysed, as our own use of language also reflects our views and values and confers form and meaning on the studied realities and therefore no researcher can be neutral (Charmaz, 2006). This concept was especially relevant in conducting my own study as two very different languages were involved in both data collection and data interpretation. I believe that the translation of Mandarin Chinese data into English added an extra layer and complexity of pre-analysis even before the coding begins. The overall process was challenging as it required the researcher to be extremely observant and vigilant when analysing the data. Lack of pre- existing literature on the subject helped during the initial coding stage as I did not have any pre-formed hypotheses regarding the data. This made it easier for me to be led by my data rather than try to force the data in a certain direction, precisely as advised by Charmaz (2006). The line-by-line coding also helped me to start a detailed investigation of what the participants might have experienced. Engaging in line-by-line coding was valuable to me in refocusing the later interviews and prompted me to re-examine the data.

The insight I gained through initial line-by-line coding shaped and directed subsequent research from an early stage. After instigating the initial coding manually, I progressed to focus coding, at this stage, I attempted to synthesise and explain the initially coded data. My understanding of focus coding is derived from Charmaz (2006, 2012), who suggests that significant or frequent initial codes are used to sift through large amounts of data during focus coding. Using constant comparison was crucial to this process as new comprehensions of earlier statements often prompted me to revisit earlier data, a

92

feature noted as a “major strength” of constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006, p. 60).

The next stage is theoretical coding. To Charmaz (2006, 2012), theoretical coding represents potential relationships arising between categories that developed through focus coding; these relationships can be specific and interactive. Charmaz (2006) advises that theoretical coding must come after the focus coding to avoid creating a forced framework for the data. According to Charmaz (2006), the concept of theoretical sampling “involves constructing tentative ideas” from the data and then examining these ideas through further empirical enquiry (p. 102). Theoretical sampling guided me during the early recruitment phase. For example, one of my female participants made an interesting comment about gender inequality issues in China and how this has contributed to her mental health issues; with the theoretical sampling approach, I was able to actively recruit more male participants to help me explore the subject further from a different gender perspective. During the analysis stage, theoretical sampling was used to seek relevance in data and develop categories to form the emerging theory. When raising a code to a category, I engaged in a sequential process using a clear definition of a category, clarifying its properties, specifying the conditions under which the category had arisen and finally noticing any changes in the category and showing its relationship to other categories, as suggested by Charmaz (2006).

A constructivist grounded theory is generated by themes which emerge from data analysis. Themes are common threads extending throughout the interviews and capture the essence of meaning or experience drawn from varied situations and contexts (Morse & Field, 1995). The identification of the themes requires the researcher to search beyond surface information and immerse themselves in the data (Charmaz, 2006). Throughout the data analysing process, major themes emerge and are categorised to yield the final grounded theory (Bowen, 2006), and the use of sensitising concepts is pivotal during this process. As previously mentioned in the preliminary literature review chapter (Chapter 2), sensitising concepts gives researchers a general sense of reference and guidance in analysing data (Blumer, 1954). In constructivist grounded theory,

sensitising concepts are used as “background ideas that inform the overall research problem” and offer “ways of seeing, organizing, and understanding experience…

93

analysis” (Charmaz, 2003, p. 259). According to Blumer (1954), sensitising concepts

can be tested, improved and refined. For constructivist grounded theory studies, researchers are able to identify categories in the data and make sense of participants’ experiences based on their cognitive frame of reference (Dey, 2007) which is comprised of sensitising concepts. In regard to this study, sensitising concepts were used to lay the foundation for examining the codes and formulating categories. These sensitising concepts resulted from a thorough review of the literature, which formed the conceptual framework for the study that includes cultural dimensions theory (in particular the individualism and collectivism dimension), the dynamism of Chinese philosophies, the symbolic interactionism approach to understanding mental health stigma and cultural

competence models with the user’s perspectives (as illustrated in Chapter 2).

Understanding these concepts helped me set the context for the study, provided me with an analytic framework, served as a point of reference and guided me in the categorisation of the data. However, I was aware that although sensitising concepts might help me to identify some important aspects of the research situation, they could also cause me to overlook other aspects (Gilgun, 2002), which I paid particular attention to during the analysis process. Using Rose’s (P1) interview as an example, a process of initial coding, focus coding, theoretical coding and categorising is illustrated in Figure 3.1

Figure 3.1 Rose’s (P1) coding process

initial