Data analysis and writing

During fieldwork I continuously drew connections between my findings and the theory I had read, looking for connections (Tuckett, 2005). It became increasingly clear that some avenues I had wanted to explore were closed, but at the same time others opened, allowing me to reorient my research as I went along. The use of three different methods helped me to create a complex picture of assisted reproduction and ova

provision in Romania, which had to be organised around themes that could answer my research questions, but also reflect unexpected findings (Gill, 2000). It is the juxtaposition of multiple methods that has helped me verify the data I was collecting in terms of its validity, as well as cross-checking important findings with various participants. Given the time that had passed since some of the events I was interviewing actors about, I made sure to ask for details on the same event from more than one participant to compensate for memory flaws.

My interpretation of the data consisted in thematic analysis, defined by Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 79) as a method for “identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data”.

According to Braun and Clarke (2006), thematic analysis is a method whose flexibility to both the researchers’ epistemological

approach and methods is an advantage. What matters is that this type of analysis is used properly to serve the aim of one’s research, being

informed by the research questions and the data collected through

fieldwork. Ethnographic research offers good data for a thematic analysis of practices and multiple understandings set in a social context

(Holloway and Todres, 2003). The themes that then guide the analysis are constructed by the researcher according to their academic interests, and put together to create a coherent and consistent narrative. Braun and Clarke (2006) emphasise the fact that themes do not simply

‘emerge’ from the data, as if they were just waiting to be discovered.

Instead, the themes are the product of the researcher’s selection and framing practices, indebted to his/her particular point of view.

The interviews were the richest in data and were the starting point for defining the themes that would guide my interpretation and writing.

Firstly, I separated them according to the background of the interviewees (IVF patients, medical professionals, politicians etc.), and then I

highlighted the more or less discreet topics each of them had talked about, delineating the codes for analysis. Once I went through all transcripts, I organised the codes that I had identified into themes and sub-themes⁹. The next step was organising the interview material

9 See Appendix for examples of themes and sub-themes developed during analysis.

according to speakers and themes so that I could easily browse for information according to both criteria. To do this, I did not use qualitative analysis software, but Evernote, a generic note-taking program with which I was more familiar and which offered enough flexibility so that I could easily navigate my data.

The themes that I delineated primarily defined existing practices of ova provision and the problems the current legislation creates, the perceived impact of the ova ‘trafficking’ cases on assisted reproduction in general, and ova provision in particular, the desirable regime of ova provision according to the interviewees, especially in relation to

compensation or payment, class and race references, and relationships between types of participants (e.g. between patients and clinicians, between clinicians and the authorities etc.). These themes did overlap to a certain extent, since no clear, definite boundaries can be drawn

between them, and they also presented somewhat different framings between participants, for whom the same issue bore different stakes (e.g. the consequences of a lack of proper regulations were different for patients than for medical professionals). At this level, the data I had gathered became clearer, but was still rather descriptive.

The organisation of the chapters reflects my efforts at understanding the history of ova provision in Romania under the

influence of a multiplicity of agencies, and most importantly how different practices of ova provision came to be classified as legal or illegal. The constant reference participants made to the ova commercialisation cases, even without being prompted by my questions, led me to realise that those had been an important hallmark that influenced much that was to come. I therefore mapped these influences in the political realm in the second chapter, where I documented the efforts of passing specific legislation on assisted reproduction. In my third chapter I analysed what was happening in parallel with these legal proceedings from the

perspectives of those who were actually involved with the material practices of ova provision, namely patients and medical professionals.

The embeddedness of the themes I had identified in the contexts of their production (e.g. political, medical, administrative etc.) determined me to organise my writing around the specificities of each site of ova provision

enactment. Thus, instead of having, for instance, a chapter solely on the issue of ova commercialisation, and another chapter on the construction of ova providers’ identities etc., I preferred to constantly return to these overarching themes in subsequent chapters in order to illustrate the way in which their framing changes (or remains the same) from one site to another (e.g. from parliamentary debates to infertility clinics).

Analysis did not end when I started to write, but rather intensified as the task of making connections between data, theory, events, and interviewees became tangible. The data from interviews was the backbone for my analysis and writing, but I constantly went back to my observation notebook and thematic analysis sheets to nuance and detail my accounts. At certain points, the data from interviews moved to the background as I brought forth the documents and media reports I had collected, like in the case of the third and, partially, the fourth chapter.

One of the biggest challenges of writing was accurately illustrating the performativity of the phenomenon under study, as well as of the actors involved in its enactment. I could not simply narrate events

chronologically, highlighting a unidirectional relationship of cause and effect, or take events for granted. I had to constantly pay attention to the apparatuses used for enacting and framing identities, practices, and narratives so that I did not contribute to further reifying them. I was therefore particularly concerned with not reinforcing stereotypes, especially in relation to ova providers, who were the most affected by negative portrayals. By foregrounding the concept of identity fluidity, I could cater to the opportunities it offers for change and political action, as well as account for the identity dynamics described above.