This section reports how I managed, organized, and transcribed the data from the project. I then discuss how I analyzed the data in preparation to write my findings for each set of research questions and I detail how I analyzed the data and coding processes leading to the interpretation and synthesis of the findings. I discuss how the research questions are answered by the findings and are triangulated by my sources.
3.8.1 Management of the Data
My primary data sources were interviews, and field notes, and photographs of LL items. I recorded LL items by using a high resolution digital camera. I then transferred the photos to an online password protected storage locker and divided them into three folders by locality (Clarkston Village, Market Street, and the Somali Plaza).
After I interviewed a participant, I transferred my audio recording to a password protected online storage locker. I did the same with my audio-recorded field notes. Each audio recording was transcribed for what was said and by whom. I employed the help of students in the department of Applied Linguistics Master’s degree program to transcribe some of the follow up interviews. These transcriptions were then uploaded to NVivo 10, a qualitative data management program.
3.8.2 Analysis and Coding for RQ1
In total, I captured 178 photos in order to document LL items. I then printed the photos so that I could hand number each sign as a unit of analysis and ensure that I was including all of the LL items. After carefully making sure to assign each sign a number only once, I identified 291
units of analysis. I coded the data by first creating an Excel spreadsheet that indicated the number of the unit of analysis as well as a summary of the language that was present on the sign so that each unit had its own row in the Excel spreadsheet. I then associated each column with a code with the plan of placing a ‘1’ in a column if the characteristic was present in the unit of analysis. I then coded each sign for the following characteristics according to variables used by Ben-Rafael, Shohamy, Amara, & Trumper-Hecht (2006):
Top-down
Bottom-up
Bottom-up 1 (Private business sign: indicating name)
Bottom-up 2 (shop sign other than sign indicating name (e.g., Bread sold here!)
Bottom up 3 (sign placed by third party; private announcements wanted ads)
English only
Language other than English
English and language other than English (bilingual or multilingual signs)
Rules or regulations (signs indicating a law, rule, or regulation)
The LL items coded as top-down are those issued by national and public bureaucracies- public institutions, governmental, municipal. Bottom-up signs, in contrast, include signs that are issued by individual social actors such as shop owners and companies or private citizens (Ben Rafael et al. 2006). Bilingual and multilingual signs were then categorized according the languages used and the purpose of each sign (Ben Rafael et al. 2006). During the process of coding multilingual signs I enlisted the help of community volunteers as well as some of participants. They helped me code the signs and interpret them.
3.8.3 Analysis, and Coding for RQ2
In order to analyze the data in reference to my second research question I used a “case analysis” approach which involves “organizing the data by specific cases for in-depth study and comparison” (Patton, 2002, p. 447). Case analysis includes presenting highlights of each
participants’ cases in order to present the case in reference to the research questions (Patton, 2002). Case study analysis allows several case studies to be compared and contrasted, but the basic unit of analysis remains the distinct cases (Patton, 2002). Initially each case “must be represented and understood as an idiosyncratic manifestation of the phenomenon of interest” or a “unique holistic entity” and “later it is possible to compare and contrast cases (Patton, 2002, p.450). The
phenomenon under investigation in RQ2 are the language and literacy practices of Somali refugee women. In each case, multiple sources of information were brought together to offer a
comprehensive picture of each woman’s experiences with language and literacy practices and their language socialization experiences. The case data for each woman included
(1) Observations of participants at the Center, in their homes, or socially (recorded in field notes)
(2) 1-2 semi-structured interviews discussing life history, immigration process, educational and vocational past, and language and literacy practices
(3) Informal discussion with participants and caseworkers at the Center (recorded in field notes)
Information from these sources was integrated to produce a readable case that could be used to better understand the paths of language socialization for each individual. The case study
approach that I employed describes what happened over time to portray the life of a person and the lifelong process of language socialization (Patton, 2002, p.439).
In sum, I have utilized case study analysis to highlight the language and literacy practices of each woman and their successes and struggles with language socialization in order to represent their diverse language socialization processes. After presenting each case, I compare the cases in order to analyze implications for the language socialization of Somali refugee women in the CoP. I analyzed interview transcripts and field notes in order to investigate RQ2. NVivo allows researchers to engage in three types of coding for data analysis: descriptive, topical, and analytical (QRS International, 2006). I employed the descriptive and topical coding functions while
analyzing the data. In NVivo, descriptive coding enables the researcher to associate each transcript with a particular case or participant. The descriptive coding mechanism helps to analyze data within each particular case as opposed to analyzing across all of the cases. I used the descriptive coding category in order to associate data with each participant, using their pseudonyms as codes (Hannah, Faith, Caaliyah, Mama Mouna, and Mama Rita). I associated each of the interview transcripts with the appropriate code and then I also analyzed my field notes line by line and associated the same code to stretches of data that reference interactions or observations of the respective participants. In this way I constructed a case record for each participant by organizing the unedited raw data from interviews and observations.
I used topical coding to assign topics or concepts to stretches of text within each case. The topical codes were deduced from research questions related to RQ2. Deductive analysis is where the data are analyzed “according to an existing framework” (Patton, 2002, p.453). Deductive codes were directly related to the research questions and included the following themes:
Language learning in school/ESL class
Strategies for language socialization
Language socialization in the family
Experiences in the CoP
Barriers to language socialization
Absence of literacy practices
Educational/career goals
Textual mediation a barrier
FoK
Given that each woman’s case and language and literacy background are different, each of the deductive themes are not present within each woman’s case.
After constructing the illuminating cases of Somali refugee women, I analyzed the cases using cross-case comparison to discuss the following themes related to the research questions and the deductive codes above: Successful strategies for language socialization, Barriers to language socialization, and FoK. Within each of these themes are inductive themes that were relevant across cases.
3.8.4 Analysis, and Coding for RQ3
The third research question emerged after one of my participants’ cases stood out from the other cases. While I had planned on using a case study analysis across all cases, I spent extra time with one participant, Mama Rita and she exhibited many practices that I observed to be unseen by the CoP and that would be useful for deepening understanding of or challenging the language socialization or barriers to language socialization among Somali refugee women. Mama Rita’s proficiency in English, along with her willingness to share her life and her community with me, and in some ways her schedule flexibility, also enabled me to look at her case more closely. For this question I analyze Mama Rita’s practices (based on observations, field notes, conversations, and interviews) and “theorize based on practice” in order to uncover FoK (Gonzalez et al., 2005).
categories. In sum, after coding the case to identify Mama Rita’s FoK, I coded the data labeled ‘FoK’ inductively to find themes within the FoK code. The codes, which I present as themes in Chapter 8 include Mama Rita’s
Purveying of information
Participation in politics
Participation in religious activities
Mama Rita’s FoK are organized and described thematically and then discussed in light of language socialization for Somali refugee women in the CoP.