After hearing the comment: “I’ve had enough of this I want to just get on with my classes”, the idea of using the inductive approach became a reality. This method of data analysis means that:
…the patterns, themes and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge from the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis” (Patton, 1990; p.390).
The earlier comment, from a young woman at the time of a critical incident, became the catalyst for this particular methodology as I realised that drawing meanings and themes from interviews with young people was a powerful way to plumb their knowledge and experience. Fook (1996, p.4) explained this by suggesting that:
...practitioners may in fact use, and benefit from using, a more inductive approach whereby a more general theory of how to act might be developed from a series of specific experiences (through a process of articulating the implicit theory).
On the journey preceding the research, and during the research itself, especially with the Collaborative Groups, ideas had begun to form about what the Interviewees might potentially contribute. After hearing the above comment, I had become aware of this need to suspend my presuppositions in a conscious fashion so as not to second-guess research outcomes (Patton, 1990) As a result of this I discussed with the Interviewees that there was no pre-determined or anticipated outcome, and that I genuinely wanted to hear their voices, with the intention that they would be more likely to share their valuable experience with me so that responses could be made the best they possibly could. Gollop (2000; p.24) reinforces this view by saying that:
The interviewer takes on a non-expert role by emphasising that he/she doesn’t know what it’s like, for example, to have parents who have separated, thereby putting the child in the role of the expert.
this individual essence became less important and the collective voice became significantly important (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Stake, 2000; Creswell, 1994). Gilgun (1994) discusses idiographic and nomothetic generalisability. Nomothetic is used for identifying: “...general laws, abstracted from time, place and specific person’. For this research, therefore, it was decided that the former, a more ‘bottom-up’ approach, was more appropriate. Fook (2002, p.84) defines idiographic generalisability as: “...theory that is developed from specific situations and can be tested for relevance for, and its ability to provide understanding of other situations”.
Consequently, an awareness of the need to make meaningful and accurate categorisations was maintained. The inductive analysis set out to explore and integrate the young people’s contributions so that these could be synthesised into workable and enlightening recommendations to influence the people who make the decisions, and the practitioners working in this field who are entrusted with providing strategic informed responsiveness (Janesick, 2000; Stake, 2000; Spicker, 1995; Jayaratne & Stewart, 1991; Patton, 1990; Babbie, 1989; Strauss, 1987; Finch, 1986).
This became a very demanding section of the research. The need to remain cognisant of the heuristic nature of the research and of the influence of myself as an analytical tool became paramount:
Here investigators seek ways of demonstrating to their audiences their historical and geographic situatedness, their personal investments in the research, various biases they bring to the work, their surprises and “undoings” in the process of the research endeavors. The ways in which their choices of literary tropes lend rhetorical force to the research report, and/or ways in which they have avoided or suppressed certain points of view (Gergen, & Gergen, 2000; p.1027).
Over the time of the research, the importance of reflexivity became highlighted as being a necessary tool to be used within the research. Fook and Gardner (2007, p33) define reflexivity as: “...the ability to recognise that all aspects of ourselves and our contexts influence the way that we research or create knowledge”.
Being aware that I did have an agenda that could get in the way reflexive processes were implemented with my research supervisors and my clinical supervisor as they read the research and talked it through with me. This allowed these issues to be brought to the fore, discussed, challenged and made sense of so that the impact on the interpretation of the data was lessened. An example was my whole motivation for conducting the research. I wanted to identify, and include the voices of young people in the critical incident response field, and this in itself made it value laden. As Fook and Gardner (2007, p.29) write:
Being reflexive by taking into account subjectivity will involve a knowledge of who I am as a whole being (social, emotional, physical, cultural, economic, political) and understanding the effects this has on the knowledge I perceive and create.
Further to this motivation, once I had heard these voices there was a risk of putting myself in a position of advocacy for them and that this could hold the risk of being a lonely position. As Finch (1996; p.220 has written:
If – as is frequently the case in qualitative research – we reflect the viewpoint of a relatively powerless group, we ourselves become automatically entangled in power relations, since in general our society operates on a ‘hierarchy of credibility’ that accords more credibility to those in top positions.
There has also been the temptation to become the voice of the group whom I have researched, or worse still, the voice of all adolescents who have been through a response (Street, 1998; Finch, 1986). This has not been the intention. In the longer term what would be considered to be more in line with my ethos would be to enable this disenfranchised group to find effective voices of their own with the intent of eventually decreasing existing power differentials (Lincoln & Denzin, 2000; Jayaratne & Stewart, 1991; Klay, 1991, Bryson 1979). Bryson (1979, p.102) succinctly expressed it as follows:
We must direct our attention towards those questions the less powerful want answered and those problems they want solved, and we must attempt to employ methods, which do not reduce their power.
Negotiating the fine line between describing the experiences and making causal interpretations that could be legitimated and verified needed to be undertaken.
any discussion so that interpretations were mine alone (Patton, 1990). Ensuring that this stitching held the quilt together became a challenge. Janesick (2000, pp.389-90) used a different metaphor to describe this process:
The role of the qualitative researcher, like that of the dancer or the choreographer, demands a presence, an attention to detail, and a powerful use of the researcher’s own mind and body in analysis and interpretation of the data…no one can interpret your data but you. Qualitative researchers do not hire people to analyze and interpret their data.
Within this context, my task, then, has been to ‘dredge’ these constructions so that the full extent of the subject under exploration was brought to light. As McLemore and Neumann (1987, p.48) state: “The full complexity unfolds as the research progresses. All data becomes relevant, thus increasing the validity of the research”. All data, then, needed to be constantly analysed and it has been suggested that this takes as much time as the interviews themselves (Janesick, 2000).
To unearth this complexity it was decided that the data that was collected from the interviewees’ transcripts would be colour coded as the themes became apparent. This thematic analysis (Fook, 2002) was done by hand with each theme as it was identified being given its own colour coding and then collated as quotes into a master document so that all references to the theme were together. Once this was done the themes became clear to me. However, this was the stage that required reflexivity (Barbour, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; McIntyre, 2008; Leitz et. al., 2006; O’Leary, 2004; Fook, 2002; Fook, 1996; Creswell, 1994) and these themes were discussed were supervisors to ensure that my interpretations were valid.
After this process was undertaken, there was still constant checking that the themes were valid and at times they were amended and readjusted as new data from the interviews came to light. The categories and codes took on a fluid quality. While this was happening a process of frequently checking back with the original transcripts to ensure that the coding stayed close to the original data was conducted (Barbour, 2008; Leitz et. al., 2006; O’Leary, 2004; Creswell, 1994; Okely, 1994).
From this constant analysis of the data, and the reflexivity process that was undertaken, it became apparent that another layer to the quilt would add to the validity and rigour of the findings. The following quote from O’ Leary (2004, p.184) illustrates the process that was conducted. It highlighted that more depth would add this additional rigour:
It is a process that requires you to: manage and organize your raw data; systematically code and enter your data, engage in reflexive analysis appropriate for the data type, interpret meaning, uncover and discover findings; and finally, draw relevant conclusions, all the while being sure to keep an overall sense of the project that has you constantly moving between your data and your research questions, aims and objectives, theoretical underpinnings, and methodological constraints.
As a result of this it was decided that a Focus Group would add depth to the data and provide the extra warmth that the quilt needed. While this data had been enlightening in itself, having it examined by a group of young people was an exercise in cross checking for similarities and differences. It also enabled the findings to be put into a wider context that had also included my own experience and practice. Barbour (2008), Fook (2002), Clandinin and Connelly (1994), Creswell (1994) and Glaser and Strauss (1967) recommend this practice of paying regard to all contributions to the area of study.