Data Analysis

The stages of analysis (Smith et al, 2009) I used were:

1. Transcription, reading and re-reading

I transcribed verbatim the interview in a table within a Word document, including my questions/comments – and I numbered the lines of the transcript. I found that this process in itself was transformative, especially in one case where I felt the interview had elucidated little data: for me, what could have been seen as a mundane step in the process was exciting and it felt like the research was starting to breathe on its own. I then read and re-read the transcript to ensure full familiarity as well as repeatedly listening to the original recording to ensure correct transcription and multi-modal immersion. I chose to do the majority of my analysis by computer as I felt this helped contain the data for me, especially at times when the volume could have been overwhelming.

2. Initial Notes

I used the right-hand column to make initial notes (see Appendices 10/11 for samples) based on Smith et al’s suggestion to make this a free textual analysis: descriptive notes on the content; linguistic comments (including pauses, repetition, laughter, tone, hesitancy etc); and conceptual comments which allowed me to being the process of interpretation.

3. Develop emergent themes

I used the transcript and above notes to inform my emergent themes – thus beginning the process of reducing down the mass of data. For my own audit trail, I kept a track of the line number and quotation that backed up my rationale for a theme. This was done within a table (see Appendix 7).

4. Creating super-ordinate and sub-ordinate themes by searching for connections across themes

I started to cluster the themes – at first keeping this broad before deciding whether I wanted to discard any themes if they were not relevant to my research aim. I kept these discarded themes in a separate document in case anything would justify later their inclusion.

5. Check back to original transcript/notes.

Whilst I stayed true to the interpretative endeavour, to ensure I had stayed close to the data, at this point I returned to the original transcript and notes.

6. Repeat stages 1-5 for the next interview

The process was repeated for each participant, bracketing, as much as possible, what had gone before to keep in line with the foundation of idiography. I did not move on the second interview until my first transcript and emergent themes had been reviewed by my supervisor and a colleague: my supervisor reviewed the themes I had put together whereas my colleague gave her own thoughts on the blank transcript. This allowed me to benefit from two different views of my approach and themes.

7. Look for patterns across all participants

Once all the interviews were analysed, I set about looking for patterns and convergences across them – using polarisation, abstraction and subsumption. I wrote each potential theme on a post-it note and spent time configuring the themes, which I then transferred to a document. I was left with a large document of sub-themes within super-ordinate themes and because of the earlier system of keeping quotes, I was easily able to link these to the appropriate participant words (See Appendix 9). This helped me to choose the most pertinent quotations to include in my write-up.

With regards to my own interview that had been conducted by an independent researcher, I completed these steps as above but returned to the process of external validation in step 6, which I had not done with the other four participants and which served as a form of triangulation.

It was important to move back and forth between the stages over a long period of time, which allowed me to step back from my initial thoughts, develop themes and gain new insights. Some of the analysis process continued into the writing up stage, which gave yet another opportunity to move backwards and forwards between the research stages.

3.7 Trustworthiness

In order to ensure the highest level of trustworthiness throughout the research process, I followed Yardley’s (2000) criteria:

Sensitivity to Context

It was important for me to do a thorough literature review on both hope and the mixed race experience to do justice to the work that preceded this study as well as my own research questions. I also read around qualitative methods and IPA to show a clear understanding of the methodological landscape and to justify my choice.

In terms of socio-cultural context, whilst I could be seen to be ‘the same’ as my participants, it was important for me to be aware of the differences between us – the variety of racial and cultural experiences and how these might impact the data.

Finally, at the levels of the interview and analysis, I tried to stay present to the conversations and transcripts when I was analysing and the use of verbatim extracts ensured I stayed close to context whilst employing interpretative skills.

Commitment and Rigour

I was committed to this study from the outset – not only for personal reasons but also because I was mindful of respecting the time and emotional energy that the participants had invested in assisting me. I wanted to honour their part by being

rigorous in my analysis, following up with them when promised and being open about the research process. I was also rigorous in terms of the purity of my sampling and the detailed level of analysis.

Transparency and Coherence

As a former financial auditor it has always been important to me to be transparent about processes and it felt natural to keep a clear audit trail that allows anyone to follow my evidence back to the original source as well as my thinking throughout the interpretation stage. The coherence of my thinking was also validated throughout the process through review by my supervisor, colleague and independent researcher.

My reflective journal has helped me greatly to be aware of my own processes such that I can share them in this study. In particular, by losing myself in the act of ‘free writing’ I have been able to articulate my own parallel processes, which I feel have been critical in making this research relevant, engaging and valid.

Impact and Importance

I believe this element of trustworthiness began with the highlighting of hope and multiracial issues as important to the participant group. Not only is the content of this research of importance to the professions of counselling psychology and psychotherapy but I also feel that by adapting IPA in a way that has not previously been done, I might influence this prominent methodology by introducing the new element of taking a more personal and integrated approach.

I also chose to take guidance from Cresswell’s (2009) trustworthiness strategies, which I found to be more ‘micro’ recommendations, thereby complementing Yardley’s (2000) ‘macro’ guidelines. The following points were taken into consideration:

Use member checking: I sent sections of the Findings chapter so the participants could see how their material sat with that of other participants within the greater whole.

Use rich thick description in findings section: I tried to achieve this by probing where appropriate key areas during interviews to get a deep description of experiences.

Clarify researcher bias: by including myself as participant and also by keeping and sharing sections of my reflective journal, I have clearly stated how my experiences locate me within the subject.

Present negative information that runs counter main themes: this fully acknowledges the lived experience of the individuals, showing that reality is made up of, at times, contradictory evidence (Yardley, 2000)

Spend prolonged time in the field: in my case, my ‘prolonged time’ was due to my own similar background to the participant, which gives me an understanding of the phenomenon. The negative implications of this are covered later.

Use peer debriefing to enhance accuracy: this has been achieved on multiple levels. A colleague has been my ‘critical research partner’ throughout this process and, alongside my supervisor, has offered an impartial and questioning approach to the study throughout its development and completion.

Use an external auditor to review the entire project: I have followed this in part through the review of an analysed transcript by my supervisor, a full ‘parallel’

analysis of my first interview by my research partner and a review of the analysis of my own transcript by the independent researcher who conducted the interview with me. The latter was not familiar with me, however my research partner was a colleague and friend so I acknowledge there was no full ‘objective assessment’

(p.192) as Cresswell (2009) recommends.

On balance, I feel that these two sets of trustworthiness strategies and recommendations have offered me sound and varied levels of opinion on how best to validate this research.