The deliberate decision to avoid the heading ‘data analysis’ has been made as the phrase ‘analysis’ implies a philosophy contrary to that of phenomenology (Hycner, 1999, cited Groenewald, 2004). As Hycner (1999) explains, the term ‘analysis’ infers a breaking into parts which can result in the phenomenon becoming lost. On the other hand, ‘explication’ infers an exploration or consideration of the various components of a
45
phenomenon without losing sense of the whole (cited in Groenewald, 2004). As illustrated by Lunenburg and Irby the task of the qualitative researcher is:
To find patterns within words and observed actions, and to present those patterns for others to inspect while at the same time staying as close to the construction of the world of the participants as they originally experienced it. (2008, p. 89)
This process of explication is not a linear one, but rather a process of moving to and from different stages (Spencer, Ritchie, & O'Connor, 2003). This process is depicted by Spencer, Ritchie and O’Connor (2003) as a series of platforms between which the researcher moves as necessary. As themes are identified and refined, the researcher needs to return to the raw data to validate a theme, consider suppositions and so forth, so at various points the explication process may resemble circular phases rather than a straight unidirectional line. This demonstrates an on-going iterative process so that “…interpretation and the assignment of meaning take place throughout the [explication]…process” (Ritchie, Spencer, & O'Connor, 2003, p. 219).
As previously mentioned, research interviews were recorded on dictaphones. All audio recordings were initially transcribed verbatim with the omission of ‘um’, ‘er’ and other common speech elements to enhance readability. Prior to the transcription being sent to the relevant participant all obviously identifying information was coded; such as the name of a fieldwork placement being termed ‘placement agency 1’. In discussion with the participant, further information which could have been potentially identifying was then either deleted or altered to make it more generic. Feedback on the transcription was sought from participants and in some cases there were several iterations of the transcript before participants were satisfied with the final version. Once participants agreed with the transcription, their consent to release the transcript was obtained before any interview data was used.
When the final edited versions of all the transcriptions were approved by participants (see Appendix L), the more formalised approach to explication commenced. The term ‘formalised’ is used as attempts to comprehend the data commence from the first interview when significant ideas appear, and the beginnings of themes are revealed (Creswell, 2009). This process is known as ‘progressive focussing’ which as Schutt (2004) explains is an “iterative and reflexive process” (p. 416) that commences when
46
data collection commences, not once data collection has ceased, and the researcher modifies the data collection process in response to emergent concepts or themes.
Although the interview format was informed by some themes evident in the literature, consistent with a qualitative inductive approach it was anticipated that themes would be revealed as the study progressed (Patton, 1987; van Manen, 1990). This compelled the researcher to employ an open stance working with and considering the data, and to be prepared to accept whatever themes may appear in relation to fieldwork supervision, rather than being limited by her own presuppositions or by themes identified in the literature.
Scripts were read several times as part of the verification process of transcribing them, during which time the researcher noted key words and phrases to allow the participants’ voices to speak to the explication process. Participants’ key responses were clustered together under the eight main questions used in the research interview (Groenewald, 2004; Smith & Eatough, 2007). From this information, a number of patterns were identified which were colour-coded and particularly noteworthy passages of text which corresponded to these ideas were also collated (Creswell, 2009; Punch, 2005). This entailed careful examination of each script, considering the frequency of the word or phrase and the emphasis placed on it by the participant, which resulted in the amalgamation or elimination of some patterns (Moustakas, 1994). In some instances participants were contacted to clarify elements where meaning was unclear.
After this primary phase, these units of meaning were grouped into themes. This was done by listing the units of meaning to extract the essence of each unit in relation to the phenomenon as a whole (Creswell, 2009; Groenewald, 2004). The essence is “the core meanings mutually understood through a phenomenon commonly experienced” (Patton, 2002, p. 106) the study of which, van Manen (1990) states is phenomenological research. The process of identifying key concepts, refining them and exploring them by dismantling and then reassembling has been said to be a key part of qualitative research (Schutt, 2004). Some overlap was evident with many of the themes, which is unsurprising given “the nature of human phenomena” (Groenewald, 2004, p. 20). Through this iterative process key themes were distilled as were a number of sub themes.
47
In seeking to capture the essential quality of a particular theme, van Manen (1990) emphasises the importance of ‘free imaginative variation’: “our concern is to discover aspects or qualities that make a phenomenon what it is and without which the phenomenon could not be what it is [original emphasis]….Does the phenomenon without this theme lose its fundamental meaning?” (p. 107). This was a useful tool in the explication process for determining what constituted a theme from the raw data, considering whether the participants’ experience of fieldwork supervision necessitated inclusion of a particular theme, or whether the meaning attributed to the phenomenon existed if that given theme was excluded. As Smith and Eatough explain “A two-stage interpretation process, or a double hermeneutic, is involved. The participant is trying to make sense of his/her world and the researcher is trying to make sense of how the participant is trying to make sense of his/her world” (2007, p. 37). The researcher was mindful of this, wanting to ensure that participants’ voices and meanings were being transmitted, not those of the researcher (Spencer, et al. 2003).
The tertiary and final phase of explication involved each interview being summarised anew and units of meaning highlighted in each summary. These units of meaning were then clustered and themes extracted, and then considered against those previously distilled. This process required searching for themes common to the majority of, if not all, interviews, as well as any individual variations in themes (Hycner, 1999 cited Groenewald, 2004; Spencer, et al. 2003). As Spencer stresses “It is essential that the…ideas and concepts that are developed are rooted within the data, rather than simply superimposed” (Spencer, et al. 2003, p. 210). From this final process, five key groupings of student understandings emerged. These were: understanding purpose and process; participant assertiveness; supervisor experience and skill; relationship and compatibility, and; luck. These are presented in depth in Chapter Four.