Grounded Theory Analysis and Construction

Initial Coding. In the first segment, I used Charmaz’s (2008, 2014) suggestions as a framework for CGT analysis to unearth the process of developing a political identity in college towards a descriptive model that captures the complexity of the process.

Charmaz (2014) outlines four steps for data analysis. The foundation of analysis in grounded theory is the idea of constant comparison of ideas, concepts, people, codes, and other material in the data that propels the data analysis process forward until a theory is fully constructed that describes the phenomenon (Charmaz, 2008, 2014). Initial coding was focused on fragmenting the data into words, lines, segments, or events in order to ascertain “what is happening in the data” and “grappling with what it means” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 113).

I began data analysis right away. Once transcripts were returned to me, I read them over, uploaded them to Atlas.ti, and paired them with the raw audio from the interviews, in case I wanted to hear the speaking tone of the participant. Based on notes taken during the initial read through of the transcripts and memos of interviews that I noted were particularly insightful or illuminating at the time, I selected and initially coded three transcripts from each institution, generating 990 initial codes (for a sample

89

list of initial codes see Appendix F). I began inductively coding, moving quickly through the transcripts, but as I coded more and more transcripts, I would use previously

generated codes to describe occurrences that were similar. I was intentional about selecting contrasting narratives within and between institutions (e.g., a student who claimed to be disengaged from politics, a conservative student, and a liberal student) to take advantage of the maximum variation sampling I undertook. It is important to point out, as Charmaz (2014) contends, that initial coding often points out gaps in data. Hence, the initial analysis of transcripts after visiting the first two institutions, led me to refine my interview protocol by taking questions out and rewording others to better hone into aspects of a student’s identity development. For example, I initially asked what political labels students subscribed to but later came to understand that students subscribed for different reasons. Thus, I began asking a follow-up question about how salient the political label was to a student’s daily-lived experience.

During this stage in the analysis, I endeavored to remain open to the various directions that the data were leading me. Thus, many of the codes were “in vivo” codes, or codes that come directly from a participant’s narrative. Some examples of in vivo codes are: “becoming exposed,” “hearing the bad side,” “questioning the system,” and “taking my education with me.” Furthermore, during initial coding I paid special

attention to “code words that reflect action” or using gerunds while coding (Glaser, 1978) in order to resist making conceptual leaps too early in the analytic strategy (Charmaz, 2014).

90

Focused Coding. The next phase of coding in grounded theory was focused coding. Focused coding was used to “synthesize, analyze, and conceptualize larger segments of data” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 138). In this phase, I coded the initial codes and began to group them into broader categories or what Atlas.ti calls “code families.” During this process, Charmaz suggests that the researcher continually make clear and defend whether the focused codes capture the data accurately and completely. This phase generated 356 codes. As these focused codes emerged, I compared them back to a

different set of transcripts. I would add initial codes when they did not fit the emerging focused codes and memo about the tensions. Some examples of focused codes are: “lacking understanding,” “evaluating self,” and “interacting with others.”

Axial Coding. The third phase of coding builds on Strauss and Corbin’s (2008;

1990) notion of axial coding. Axial coding takes focused codes and looks to define categories of relationships and areas of overlap that might connect certain focused codes together. The purpose of axial codes is to reconstruct data in fresh ways. Strauss and Corbin (2008) propose an organizing scheme for axial coding that breaks the focused codes into concepts that are considered either “conditions of the phenomenon,

actions/interactions of the participants, or consequences of the phenomenon.” The basis for the organizing scheme in this phase of coding is asking the focused codes “when, where, why, who, how, and with what consequences” in order to more fully describe the unit of analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

91

To advance to axial coding, I took the focused codes that were more prominent as determined by their “groundedness” or the number of initial codes within a focused code and graphically arranged them in a way that resembled the emerging process. This generated 20 axial codes. Atlas.ti assisted me in this phase as the “network manager” allowed me to build a graphic display that pulled directly from both initial and focused codes (see Figure 3.1). This exercise was also an example of “sorting” emerging concepts, which is an important task in GGT (Charmaz, 2014). I defined each of the axial categories and wrote a longer memo explaining how I was seeing the relationships between the concepts in the data.

Figure 3.1: Early Rendering of Political Identity Process During Axial Coding

92

In my proposal, I mentioned that the following sensitizing concepts might be useful axial codes23 _{(a) precursors to political development in college; (b) role of social}

capital and access to information; (c) campus climate and culture influences; and d) outcomes of political identity. These concepts came up, but the way that they relate to the process is markedly different that how I perceived them to be a year ago. I will attend to these dynamics in greater detail the social location section.

Theoretical Coding. The final phase in my ground theory analysis was theoretical coding. In this phase, the researcher works to further integrate the axial codes into a compelling storyline that serves as a comprehensive response to the research questions (Charmaz, 2014). To carry out theoretical coding I looked for linkages and areas of divergence among the axial codes that clarified relationships between the categories and sharpened the theoretical narrative. This led to the emergence of a core category that cuts across the entire process, four key categories, which I call phases that add depth to the core category and form the contours of the recurrent process. Two modifiers of the process also emerged that alter student’s political identity development in important ways. These concepts combine to form the emergent model of the College Student Political Identity Development process.

Other Important Tasks in CGT. There are three other important aspects of grounded theory analysis that Charmaz (2008, 2014) recommends and were integral to data analysis in this segment. These include engaging in theoretical sampling, saturation,

23 _{I list these in an effort to make them explicit and index my “wrestle with my preconceived notions”}

93

and memo-writing or “memoing.” In theoretical sampling, once a theory begins

emerging from the initial data analysis, it is imperative that the researcher seek out more data that can corroborate and add variation within the emergent theory. As noted earlier, initial coding led to changes in my interview protocol to glean data that are more

sophisticated. I also intentionally theoretically sampled to insure that I had a greater amount of STEM/Health majors because their narratives were a bit different from the other students in my study. Likewise, I had to intentionally sample a greater number of students that identified as Conservative and first-generation students to add a sufficient amount of variation to the emerging concepts.

Data collection, analysis and theoretical sampling concluded once the theoretical storyline had been saturated, or in other words, new data was not extending or

complicating categories in any new ways. This is the main reason why I did not recruit more Rutgers students. The six accounts were more than enough to get a varied sense of the campus and state context and the identity development narratives were similar to the stories I was hearing from students at other institutions. However, Charmaz (2014) cautions that theoretical saturation should not foreclose other analytic possibilities, which was important to acknowledge given my concern with a decontextualized theory (p. 216).

Memo-writing was another critical piece of my grounded theory analysis (Charmaz, 2014). Memos served as steps between data collection and writing up the grounded theory. Memos captured my thoughts, reactions, questions, comparisons, and feedback all related to the research process. I generated 53 formal memos of varying lengths that were captured using Atlas.ti. I also used numerous informal memos or

94

jottings throughout the study that I consolidated into my research journal or took from email threads or conversations with a peer-debriefer or my critical inquiry group.