Data analysis

I began my analysis whilst the data was still being collected. The employment of grounded theory enabled looking at the data as the research process evolved, in order to consider whether or not changes to the subsequent direction of the research were necessary (Charmaz, 2014). Indeed this was evident within the emerging category of the need for both professionals and peers for the support of self-harm. This influenced the later interviews as the schedule was amended to ask

171 | P a g e

additional question to explore the emerging categories in more detail. Grounded theory was considered the most appropriate form of analysis in light of what I wanted to achieve from my research, as I wanted to explore the participants’ narratives whilst also contextualising my findings.

Indeed, by contextualising my findings I was able to understand if the Therapeutic Community (TC) was having an impact on the prison environment and the relationships between the prisoners and staff, which resulted in the women prioritising professional over peer support for self-harm.

Grounded theory presents a form of thematic analysis, which looks to identify themes within the qualitative data, interview and focus group transcripts to development explanations and theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

A number of approaches exist within grounded theory, which I also needed to consider, ensuring I used the analysis, which was best suited to my data in order to answer my research questions. After carefully considering the different approaches which sit under the grounded theory umbrella, I decided constructivist grounded theory was the most fitting approach for what I wanted to achieve through my research. Constructivist grounded theory expands on qualitative research to answer the

‘why’ questions within the data by considering the impact of the values of the researcher and participant on the study through careful exploration of the language and meanings used by these specific groups (Charmaz, 2017). The employment of constructivist grounded theory is deemed most fitting in light of positioning the research within a case study design framework and the quest to enable in-depth narratives (Morse et al, 2009c) to document evidence of the Listener Schemes’

contribution to enable women to manage their self-harm in custody. The use of constructive grounded theory was also aligned with the case study design framework, which I considered to be the approach, which was most fitting to answer the research questions. In light of the adherence to a gendered approach, the consideration of the influence of myself as a female is a vital component of the theoretical positioning, which is further supported through the alignment to a constructivist grounded theory analysis, which considers the values of the researcher on the study (Charmaz, 2017).

172 | P a g e

Charmaz (2014) acknowledges that research should pay significant attention to the language,

meanings, background and values of both the researcher and participants in order to be aligned with constructivist grounded theory. For this reason, I applied constructivist grounded theory over

positivism or objective grounded theory, as it was very important within my research that I paid significant attention to the social context of the research estate and the impact of the researcher, which was a key element of this theory (Charmaz, 2014). The context of the prison site and the engagement of the women in self-harm is crucial to understand, as for women in custody this behaviour remains misunderstood by the professionals who provide treatment (Ward and Bailey, 2011). The importance of the language used by the participants is also explored within constructivist grounded theory, which was essential to ensure I was able to fully explore the Listener Scheme and the support this provision provides for women who self-harm.

In addition, constructivist grounded theory identifies the effect I have on the research, with the theory outlining that as the researcher I am attached to the research. Other forms of grounded theory, such as objectivist grounded theory do not acknowledge the links between the researcher and the research. The constructivist approach to grounded theory analysis also questions whether as researchers we can observe in a passive way and not provide any opinions of the interactions

(Charmaz, 2014). This was important within the current research, where I had to consider what previous experiences I was bringing to the research and as difficult as it may have been to consider, whether I had preconceptions of women prisoners. Both my previous experiences and my

preconceptions of women prisoners could have a significant impact on my research, which was something I wanted to avoid. It was evident that I also needed to assess their potential impact in relation to myself as a female researcher; this will be discussed at the end of the chapter as part of a critical reflection section.

By using constructivist grounded theory I was able to be flexible with my methods for the research, for instance I was able to use observations to return to the prison site to further understand the

‘why’ questions in relation to my data (Charmaz, 2017), which alterative qualitative methods would

173 | P a g e

not have permitted. As such, I was able to provide further investigations of those categories, which were highlighted as holding significant insights, which required exploring in more depth, than I had initially anticipated. Alternative forms of analysis are not as flexible as constructivist grounded theory, which would have meant that I would not have been able to return to the research estate and conduct further research to explore the findings from the first stage of data collection. It is apparent that by using grounded theory analysis I was able to become increasingly close to the data, which I had collected, which aided my understanding of the categories as they emerged (Charmaz, 2012). By choosing to employ grounded theory over other qualitative methods of analysis, I was able to go beyond the individual narratives of the participants and consider the context of the prison.

As theoretical concepts start emerging within the data, it is outlined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) that this is how the concepts become grounded. During the course of the research a theory was developed through exploring the theoretical concepts, which emerged within the data, I did not test a pre-existing theory through the data I collected. According to Charmaz (2014), the categories which highlight variations within the data should be further explored, as alongside providing the context to these categories, this allows new theories to be developed. I chose to develop a theory from the data collected, as there is only a limited amount of research that already exists on the Listener Scheme, with no current research, which explores the ways in which the Listener Scheme can support self-harm within a female prison estate. For this reason, I decided that by developing an emerging theory I would be able to uncover the needs of women within the prison estate in regards to how they wanted their self-harm to be supported, and that this would incorporate needs which are female-specific within the prison establishment.

The analysis involved looking at the participants’ transcripts and using line-by-line coding to identify what the participant was trying to articulate. I used initial coding within my research, which is supportive of Glaser’s work (1998) which sees the participants creating structure through the understanding of their actions. By using line- by- line coding I was able to identify the codes, which stood out within the data, I had collected (Charmaz, 2014).

174 | P a g e

Once I had been through the transcripts documenting the line- by- line coding, I then went through the transcriptions for a second time to identify categories within the research. The second type of coding I used was called focus coding, which considers the context of the line- by- line codes. This allowed the research to focus on an appropriate number of codes in accordance with what the research wanted to achieve, which may be many or a few codes (Charmaz, 2014). I employed focus coding by working through the interview transcripts one more time to consider the context of the line- by- line coding in relation to the research being conducted within a prison environment. I also used memos when I was conducting my focus coding to assist in providing the context of the

participants’ line- by- line coding. The use of memos assists with reflection on the research, as I made memos whilst the research was conducted so I was able to constantly reflect on the context in which the research was being carried out.

The categories, which emerged during this coding identified areas which I needed to, explore further in order to provide an extensive exploration into the Listener Scheme and what contributions of support the scheme has made for self-harm. The revisiting of codes and categories is essential when using grounded theory as a method of analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). During the second stage of the data collection, the categories which were identified within the first data collection stage were either confirmed or discounted. The same grounded theory approach was also applied to the data which I collected during the second stage of data collection which enabled me to confirm or discount the categories which had emerged during stage one of the research.