Data from interviews

The way that researchers set their research questions will define the way in which the researched data will be examined. It also sets a specific perspective and the use of certain data-gathering techniques and modes of data analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:52).

The transcripts of the interviews were read repeatedly, line by line, so as to identify the themes responding to the questions of the Model, which were then coded under several themes. For example, on the question regarding network memberships, themes answering the question were identified initially i.e. academic and health professional members. Categories were then formed, in relation to the Model, and others also emerged because the interviewees

93

made further comments. On occasion, categories were formed by the researcher‟s observations during the interview, i.e. when mentioning a specific fact or actor; most respondents seemed to find this provoking because they thought that, with this attitude, the process was somehow manipulated in favour of those specific actors and that this led to an underestimation of the rest of the participants.

There are so many different approaches to analysing qualitative data (Mason, 1998; Silverman, 2001); which one should be chosen in each case depends on the researcher‟s characteristics i.e. cultural background. The way in which the research questions originate and are expressed together with the linking between ontological and epistemological questions and answers are some of the issues to be considered when analysing data. Ryan and Russel Bernard (2000:767 in Denzin and Lincoln (eds.) 2000) argued that “qualitative data” means texts and discussion about linguistic tradition whereas analysis treats texts as objects of analysis within themselves. Sociological tradition analysis treats texts “as a window into human experience” Ryan and Russel Bernard (2000:767 in Denzin and Lincoln (eds.) 2000). It has been said that “There are a number of different theoretical perspectives on in-depth interviewing, and different types of interviews. But the features which are broadly consistent across research models are their flexible and interactive nature, their ability to achieve depth, the generative nature of the data and the fact that it is captured in its natural form” (Legard, Keegan and Ward, 2003:168 in Ritchie and Lewis (eds.) 2003).

Creswell (2003:183) mentioned that there are unusual data which go beyond the typical methods; the researcher might use them to capture useful information that a typical methodology might miss. It could be argued here that the analysis of that kind of data is somehow connected to the analysis of narrative structures where researchers treat texts as creating their own “realities” (Silverman, 2001:158).

94

Silverman (2001:158) suggested four methods/approaches for analysing textual (documentary) data:

Content analysis: it involves establishing categories and then counting the number of instances when those categories are used in a particular item of text, for instance a newspaper report. The crucial element is that the categories are sufficiently precise to enable different coders to arrive at the same results when the same body of material is examined. It is used in qualitative studies for the analysis of texts and documents.

Analysis of narrative structures: researchers treat texts as creating their own “realities”. Silverman (2001:158) discussed texts and the “transforming power of language”. Qualitative data take the form of a narrative which means the “organisation of stories meaningful or coherent in a form appropriate to a particular context. When analysing how a text works one should not forget that texts have their own narrative structure designed to persuade the reader that, confronted with any given textual fragment, we can see „that a favoured‟ reading is applied” (Silverman, 2001:166, 403).

Ethnography: it involves the study of written accounts and the way in which documents exemplify certain features of societal settings (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983; cited in Silverman, 2001:158).

Ethnomethodology: it locates these methods and the skills through which people are trying to develop an understanding of each other and of social situations. (Sacks, 1974; cited in Silverman, 2001:151).

In addition, and with reference to qualitative research methods in health care, Pope, Ziebland and Mays (2000) linked content analysis with the quantification of qualitative data while also noting that, in the distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods, it is preferable to

95

use the term “indexing” data in qualitative research instead of “coding”, which mostly refers to numbers.

Apart from being a lengthy process, indexing qualitative data requires reading the material collected again and again to identify themes and categories – these may centre on particular phrases, incidents or types of behaviour (Pope, Ziebland and Mays, 2000:114-115). Sometimes the unfamiliar or interesting terms used by respondents can form analytical categories. Furthermore, many categories might be created initially which then need to be related so that categories are not repeated and related themes also might be put together. Different forms of analysis may be identified (May 2003; Creswell 2003; Mason 1998; Ryan and Bernard in Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). Of course all approaches share common characteristics, such as the nature of content analysis, and they all have a common base of making sense of the text (Creswell, 2003:190) but, in each of them, there is a different detail or concept. In this thesis, content analysis was applied to both interview transcripts and documents. The established categories were in reference to the Model questions and new categories were added. The fact that there were questions asked also shaped the way in which the data were analysed. So for every question there were analogous answers. For example, in the question of “who is the network?” all the answers of the interviewees and texts documents were analysed in categories and were coded; similarly for the second question and so on. The interviews and documents analysis drew on the three relationships and the questions provided by the applied Dialectical Model. The relationships and questions of the Model were analysed in chapter 3 (also see a copy of the questions in Appendix D), therefore texts were analysed using the same model.

96