Data Analysis Using Elements of Grounded Theory

One of the first steps in qualitative data analysis is identification of units of analysis which, in reality, is part of the research design. Once the unit of analysis has been identified, the researcher begins to ask questions about them as they appear in the data. Through this process, units of analysis are refined with further analysis later in the study (Liamputtong and Ezzy, 2005:259). According to Lofland and Lofland (1995, a number of data analysis techniques are available to qualitative researchers. These are content analysis, discourse analysis, semiotic, narrative and grounded theory, all of which require identification of units

of analysis. In this study elements of grounded theory procedures (theoretical sampling and coding) derived by Glaser and Strauss (1967) was used in the analysis of the primary data. Grounded theory was initially developed by two sociologists, Glaser and Straus, while studying experiences of chronically ill and dying patients. The discovery of the theory led to the publication of their seminal text, „The Discovery of Grounded Theory‟. The method is labelled „grounded theory‟ to reflect the source of the developed theory, which is ultimately grounded in the emic experiences of the actors in the situation being studied. The researcher‟s task is to understand the reality of the research situation with minimal etic assumptions. To this end, the rationale of grounded theory studies is to investigate phenomena to build theories rather than test them, as opposed to deductive research (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). These arguments complemented the significant development of qualitative analysis during the 1960s (Goulding, 1999). Further, grounded theory was developed when applied ethnographic research was becoming distant from interacting with people (Charmaz, 1994:71).

The analysis involved two processes. Firstly, the data was continuously reflected upon through reading and re-reading of the written interviews during the field work with these questions in mind: (a) What is this data? (b) What are the interviewees saying? (c) What is the situation here? and (d) How is this person managing this situation? Answers to these questions were treated as reflections, which were written at the end of the field notes for each interview. Similarly, this would be referred to as „memoing‟ in the language of grounded theory. In simplicity, memos of this author‟s were more about the categories of the themes coded, their relationships, and the author‟s reactions about the interviews. The reflection process also drew attention to the interpretation of the primary data, where meaning of the empirical data was drawn. As suggested byTaylor and Bogdan (1998) in qualitative research, data collection and analysis go hand in hand throughout the study to look for emerging themes.

The second process was the tentative coding of themes. These were written on the margins of the notebook as they were identified. These processes facilitated theoretical sampling, which involves continuous comparison of data collected from the interviews and from the observations. These processes led to focus on obvious informants in search of further properties and categories of the emerging themes. As Simmons (1994:28) suggests, the process of theoretical sampling is an evolving analysis of data throughout the research process. Similarly, Glaser and Strauss (1967:62) emphasised that this is one of the qualities of

grounded theory, as the identification of themes and concepts in the data from obvious individuals, situations, incidents and places during the data gathering process eventually leads to theory development. Theoretical sampling and interviews reach saturation when no new information regarding the theme is emerging. Charmaz (1994:69) points out that, in qualitative research, it is impossible to know in advance how many people will need to be interviewed before theoretical saturation is achieved.

Interviews from phase one of the field work were transcribed, followed by further tentative coding of themes. Relevant themes were extracted from the transcribed interviews and entered under each research questions according to three headings: (1) What do I know? (2) What do I partly know? and (3) What don‟t I know? Subsequently, answers to question three led to further theoretical sampling in phase two to fill in the gaps. The aggregated texts from the transcribed interviews, field observations, and the memos in both phases of the field work were read from beginning to end as a whole. This process was repeated several times with two aims in mind: to confirm the tentative themes, and to interpret the texts. The meanings of the texts were written on the margins of the transcribed texts. Sometimes the themes were contained within the text, again these were coded. Constant comparison between data was done to validate, verify and refine emerging themes. Subsequently, the core themes were finalised as: the Lihir traditional livelihood system (Chapter 3), the historical interventions on the Lihir traditional livelihood system (Chapter 4), livelihoods in transition, resulting from the gold mine operation (Chapter 5), and the impact of the gold mine operation on the village livelihoods (Chapter 6). Primary data pertaining to these themes was extracted as coded and incorporated with the relevant secondary data to complete a whole story. Treating data in this manner strengthens the narrative nature of the thesis.

There are differing views perceived by researchers about grounded theory that one needs to take note of in applying it. These differing views have stemmed from distinct approaches to practicing grounded theory associated with the original authors Glaser and Strauss, who have had diverging opinions over the years. The central differences between Glaser‟s and Strauss‟s versions of grounded theory seem to hinge on the epistemological and methodological differences between their approaches. Glaser was more committed to grounded theory as a qualitative paradigm that is flexible and guided by informants in their natural settings. On the other hand, Strauss placed more emphasis on replicability, significance and verification that may lend more to the quantitative paradigm (Babchuk, 1996). Boneliel‟s (1996) analysis of

some grounded theory research published between 1980 and 1994 indicates that researchers had described grounded theory as grounded theory approach, grounded methods and grounded theory research; thus some studies were a divergence from the original method. Glaser (1998) described grounded theory as both a methodology and a method. To that end, for this study, the author also used grounded theory as a method, thus, applying theoretical sampling and coding. The other compelling reason is that the author had a question prior to conducting the research. This is in contrast to Glaser‟s stand that researchers should commence with what he calls a “general wonderment” – that is, a researcher does not commence his or research with explicit research questions, but allows the data collected to derive the description of the situation towards theory building. The other argument is that researchers should not read literature prior to field work to prevent them from having preconceived ideas regarding the key issues about the case study (Glaser, 1992:22).However, lack of precision in the research aims, objectives and questions is a good ingredient for considerable difficulties for research ethics committees in institutions. Furthermore, from the outset, it would be impossible to make a justifiable case for securing funds for research. In this study, relevant literature on sustainable livelihoods, including secondary data on mining on Lihir, was read prior to conducting the study. This was essential towards formulaing the research proposal. After the first phase of the field trip, the author had access to two PhD theses (Bainton, 2006 and Hemer, 2001), a masters thesis (Baput, 2003), and a paper by Awart (1996), that were focused on Lihir.