Data Analysis

In this section, I explain how I planned and executed my data analysis process to encompass three major strategies: categorizing strategies (coding and creating within- case and cross-case displays), connecting strategies (crafting narratives), and reflexivity strategies (reflecting on the researcher as the human instrument).

Coding. According to Coffey & Atkinson, “It should certainly not be assumed that theory can be “built” by the aggregation and ordering of codes or the retrieval of coded segments” (1996, p. 142). In other words, analysis does not end with coding. Coding is a first step in data analysis, in which the data is disaggregated and broken down into manageable chunks. The chunks are sorted and organized to look for patterns; then we identify and name those pieces. A code is often “a word or short phrase that

symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 3). It is a dynamic

process in which we constantly compare, contrast, and categorize data, moving from codes to categories and then back to codes again as we analyze and interpret the data. Saldaña describes a researcher’s personal attributes needed for coding processes including organization, perseverance, the ability to deal with ambiguity, flexibility, creativity, and being “rigorously ethical” (2013, p. 37). Coding requires the use of cognitive skills such as “induction, deduction, abduction, synthesis, evaluation, and logical and creative thinking” (p. 36).

For the 2013 pilot study, I chose to code my data manually and did not use software. For the first cycle of coding, I chose to use in vivo coding. In vivo codes “use the direct language of participants as codes rather than researcher-generated words and phrases” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 61). I chose this method because I thought it was important to use the participants’ actual words in order to deepen my understanding of their worldviews (Saldaña, 2013). After seven cycles of coding, I noticed that Betty’s first interview contained numerous contradictions and tensions. I re-coded the transcript using a versus coding strategy (Saldaña, 2013); for example, I coded a number of Betty’s comments as “US” versus “THEM” statements. This enabled me to see how she compared the students and parents at Westside Middle School to her daughter’s school. At her daughter’s school, the parents were educated, disciplined their children, and had “an attitude of achievement.” At Westside Middle School, the parents did not value education and were willing to settle for “government subsidies.” Betty said, “I’m glad the teacher never left me alone to have to take care of those children,” and concluded that “those students ‘didn’t have a chance.’” The word “those” in both of those statements seemed to indicate that she was “othering” them. Finally, I selected a third coding

method, descriptive coding, to facilitative the comparison of all of the different sources of data (interviews, focus groups, and documents) and to compare “the data collected across various time periods and… assessing for longitudinal participant change” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 88). I then began to identify patterns as they emerged. I developed a list of possible categories and eventually created a codebook. The pilot study data yielded five major themes: 1) us/them; 2) denial, 3) colorblindness, 4) meritocracy, and 5) a culture of niceness. These themes will be explained in detail in chapter five.

Table 3.9 Codes for Betty’s Interviews and Focus Groups (Pilot Study)

BETTY INTERVIEW CODES

Age and Helpful Mothering = red highlight Me/Us vs. Them = yellow highlight Race = green highlight

Class = blue highlight

Assumptions = purple highlight

Beginning to understand = gray highlight Tensions/Paradoxes = dotted underline

FOCUS GROUP CODES

Us/Them = yellow highlight Denial = purple highlight

Race/Colorblind= green highlight

Recognition of different perspective= red highlight Beginning to understand = gray highlight

Acknowledge Privilege = bold Tensions/Paradoxes = dotted underline

For the dissertation study data, I had planned to follow a similar coding protocol. I attempted to analyze the “new” data using the same codes, which would enable me to compare data from multiple sources and multiple participants over time. However, I found that I needed to revise and rethink this strategy. The data I collected for the critical family history project lent itself to a chronological organization strategy prior to coding.

I pulled from all the data sources to construct a narrative for each participant, and then I coded the narratives to look for patterns. Once a pattern had been identified, I went back to each of the interview and focus group transcripts to see if I could find anything else that fit the pattern, but had not made it to the narrative.

Within-case and cross-case displays. Saldaña offers recommendations for analytic work after coding. One of these approaches is within-case and cross-case displays, which he defines as “visual summaries of qualitative data and analysis into tables, charts, matrices, diagrams, etc. that illustrate the contrasts and ranges of

observations” (2013, p. 273). For my dissertation study, each participant and I mapped their critical life history project on paper. Betty and I went a step further, and organized data using a 3-column matrix. In the left-hand column, I listed Betty’s chronological details and major life events. In the middle column, I listed national and world historical events, such as wars, protests, legislation, assassinations, and technological advances. In the right-hand column, I describe social, political, and cultural contexts including the civil rights and women’s liberation movements, the economic climate, and pop culture. Table 3.10 represents this data. This process worked well with Betty for two reasons. First, we are close in age. She and I grew up during the same historical period, and we were able to help each other brainstorm events to include in the matrix. Second, Betty was keenly interested in this project and, because she is retired, she was able to invest more time than Kev or Grace. Contextualizing Betty’s upbringing enabled me to see systemic ways that race has played out in her life.

Table 3.10 Within-Case Display: Betty’s Upbringing, Contextualized18

18 _{This table was constructed using Betty’s and my own personal recollections, with dates and}

Betty’s Major Life Events Historical Events Social, Political, and Cultural Contexts

1949

Betty is born in Tobacco Farm, NC

The U.S. withdraws from Korea; NATO is formed; the Soviet Union detonates its first atomic bomb

Pre-women’s liberation; Pre-civil rights legislation 1950-1959

1955- Betty’s family moves to the city but they visit the grandparents’ tobacco farm often; Betty sees a KKK billboard; Betty starts school; Betty sees blacks in subservient roles and “not invited” to eat inside the house

Brown vs. Board of Education decision; Rosa Parks is arrested; blacks boycott buses in

Montgomery; Vietnam War begins; U.S. detonates a nuclear bomb; Soviet Union launches Sputnik, the first man-made object to orbit the Earth

Post World War II economic boom; conservative political climate; fear of

communism and the Cold War; the “Space Race” alters U.S. school curriculum; black-and- white television shows “Father Knows Best” and “Leave It To Beaver” portray idealized families; the birth control pill is invented

1960-1965

1963- Betty starts high school

Four black college students begin sit-ins at the lunch counter of a Greensboro, NC, restaurant; John F. Kennedy, Jr.’s

inauguration is televised; Russian Yuri Gagarin is the first human in space; nuclear war with Russia is narrowly avoided in the Cuban Missile Crisis; Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech; J.F.K. is assassinated; a federal district court in Alabama orders the University of Alabama to admit African American students; the Equal Pay Act passes, requiring equal wages for women and men doing equal work; the Civil Rights Act is signed by President Lyndon B.

In the early 1960s, the political climate begins to shift, reflecting civil disobedience, youth counterculture, and

Vietnam War protests. The civil rights and women’s liberation movements gain momentum; Jackie

Kennedy becomes a fashion icon; Betty Friedan's best-seller, The Feminine Mystique, is published; LBJ initiates a “War on Poverty;” the British Invasion of rock ‘n roll begins when the Beatles perform on the Ed Sullivan show

Johnson, outlawing segregation and discrimination 1965-1969

Betty is afraid of “Black Town;” two black students transfer to her school; she graduates from high school in 1965; her father dies at age 47 of heart failure; her mother goes to work 1967

Betty leaves college after one year and takes a secretarial job; notices “whites only” water fountains in federal building in NC 1969

Betty gets married and her son is born

Malcolm X is assassinated; a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, is organized to demand protection for voting rights; the Voting Rights Act is signed; the National

Organization for Women is founded; Martin Luther King, Jr. is assassinated; the Fair Housing Act of 1968 is passed to outlaw “redlining;” the Apollo 11 lunar landing mission is successful and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walk on the moon

“Summer of Love” in San Francisco; hippies and flower power; “The Monkees” airs on television; The first

national women's liberation conference is held in Chicago; Black Power salute at the 1968

Olympics; music festival at Woodstock; Vietnam War protests on college

campuses

Finally, I began comparing data across participants. To do this, I first needed to synthesize and represent the data within each case. In February 2015, I drafted a narrative for each participant and member-checked them.19 In March, I began to synthesize and represent the data across cases to look for patterns.

Crafting narratives. After organizing the data chronologically, it was time to begin drafting readable storylines. I began with my own ancestor, Catherine. After composing Catherine’s narrative, and asking family members for feedback, I began working with Betty’s data. I worked with each interview, one at a time, isolating and ordering relevant events into a timeline and then constructing a chronological

biographical account (Riessman, 2008). I constructed stories that corresponded closely to

19

I member-checked the narratives, but I have not shared my analyses, interpretations, or conclusions with the participants.

my participant’s words, although I made a few grammatical adjustments in order to condense the material and improve the flow. In addition, I integrated material from the pilot study focus groups and interviews as well as the critical family history project. For example, Betty vividly described her grandparents and the tobacco farm in North

Carolina, but not in one sitting. I followed a similar process to craft narratives for Kev and Grace. After I crafted each narrative, I began adding my interpretations, juxtaposing narratives with historical counterpoints. I alternated between telling the individual stories and situating those narratives in a larger social and historical context. This process led me back to my theoretical framework as I attempted to make sense of it all. The final

product is a richly detailed, multilayered interpretive case study.

Reflexivity strategies. Reflexivity is “the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher, the ‘human instrument’” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000, as cited in Merriam, 2002, p. 26). Reflexivity involves “thoughtful, self-aware analysis of the intersubjective dynamics between researcher and the researched. Reflexivity requires critical self- reflection of the ways in which researchers’ social background, assumptions, positioning, and behavior impact on the research process” (Finlay & Gough, 2003, ix, as cited in Roulston, 2010, p. 116). For example, as I collected the participant’s stories and began to craft their narratives, I realized that my efforts to interpret their stories were grounded in my own personal experiences and the similarities in our backgrounds, which might lead me to make assumptions or jump to conclusions. In particular, I realized that my ability to relate to Betty made it easier for me to contextualize her life, which resulted in uneven representation in the narratives and analyses. Although I rationalized that Betty had had more time, interest, and historical information to contribute to the critical family history

project than Kev and Grace, there was more to it than that. The process of reflecting deeply and critically on my own positionality and the choices I made was uncomfortable. Pillow (2003) advocates the use of “a reflexivity of discomfort.” This “calls for a

positioning of reflexivity not as clarity, honesty, or humility, but as practices of

confounding disruptions- at times even a failure of our language and practices” (Pillow, 2003, p. 192). For example, after receiving some feedback on my dissertation draft, I had to agree that I had been more judgmental in my analyses of Kev’s and Grace’s responses while giving Betty more space to tell her story and to demonstrate growth.