Grounded Theory Coding of Data

During data collection, some coding and analysis processes occur at the same time and are often done concurrently (Charmaz, 2003; 2005; 2008; Glaser, 1978; Glaser &

Strauss, 1967). According to Ng and Hase (2008, p. 159) in GT, “Coding is the process of breaking down data into distinct units of meaning for analysis and thereafter systematically re-evaluating them for their inter-relationships enabling the researcher to move the data to a higher level of abstraction.” Duchscher and Morgan (2004, p. 607) note that data is contrasted “…first against itself, then against evolving original data, and finally against extant theoretical and conceptual claims…” For each case, coding began with extracting and noting the key concepts emerged. Noting facilitates the identification and grouping into common groups (open coding), then by themed subgroups (selective coding), and finally by relationships (theoretical coding) (Glaser, 1978).

For this thesis, the first analysis of data started with the organisational documents, records, and materials. This analysis focused on building a preliminary understanding of the organisation and its hiring processes by identification of the basic common groups. With each case, this analysis was used to construct the early depictions of the application process. This included, but was not limited to, the organisational history, the identification of individuals responsible for hiring processes, position specifications, recruiting methods, assessment tools, and critical documents. These preliminary findings were used to better focus interviews and discussions with screeners in collecting information.

Interviews provided data for the second part of GT analysis, themed subgroups, which allowed for screening decisions to be integrated into the pre-constructed selection guidelines that emerged in the common groups analysis (Love, 1991). The data from

-89-

interviews were organised into two categories: Transcriptions and Interview Notes. Whilst both types of data sets provide insight into informal decisions, transcripts provide a more detailed and thorough account of interviews. Generally, the spoken word is centrally linked to actions (Peräkylä, 2005) which required this researcher to focus on each screener’s account of his/her decision processes and heuristics surrounding decisions. Analysis also considered if screener voiced behaviours mimicked observations and followed established organisational policies and procedures (Peräkylä, 2005). Specifically for the interview transcripts, part of this analysis was directed at response tokens which are expressions or sounds from the receiver to the sender of communications that are intended to acknowledge that the message was understood and to encourage the sender to continue (Peräkylä, 2005).

The first round of interview analysis required that the noting of interviews was to be coded independently of the literature collected to identify phenomena that may be unique to an organisation. Moreover, themed subgroups were allowed to emerge without pre-existing jargons as preconceptions force data into categories that are not grounded within the empirical research (Glaser, 2009). Starting with the Research Centre Interview Notes, screeners’ discussions were broken into segments of speech that identified the noun and the action(s) associated with that noun. Those actions translated to the GT gerunds that became critical in identifying the themed subgroups associated with informal decisions. For example, both S1 and S2 expressed that they participated in interviews [gerund – “interviewing”] of applicants [noun]. Whilst this can also be considered collecting data, the first round analysis was focused on the deconstruction of the interview before being fully interpreted. The act of noting gerunds focused on labelling and classifying smaller aspects of informal decisions.

The process of GT’s constant comparison, review and review again, was utilised in the second round of analysis. This lead to changes in some original gerunds, when more appropriate classifications, based on the meanings and interpretations of the data, were found. Constant comparison started when participant responses were grouped by gerunds within his/her organisation. Analysis amongst gerunds and review of the original coded data allowed similarities to emerge and to be consolidated. For example, Collecting as a themed subgroup emerged in the “Use of résumés” by both S1 and S2 (see Appendix 20). As such, it was important to ensure that the coding and analysis consider the source, in this case the participant, of the information to further understand informal decisions. This identification by participant was also important in the later theoretical analysis and cross-case analysis.

Examples of the results of this coding of the themed subgroups appear in Appendix 20, 22, and 24.

After the second round of analysis, distinct themed subgroups emerged within each case. Considering each case separately, theoretical analysis examined the relationship of

-90-

these themed subgroups to the common group depictions of the application processes.

During this third stage of analysis, the researcher considered the relationships between the themed subgroups of the interview data and the basic common groups of the pre-established guidelines. It is during this stage of analysis that the primary research question is considered which required this researcher to reconcile the organisational directives with the actual practise and informal decisions of the screeners.

Whilst engaging in theoretical analysis, the researcher examined the application processes starting at the entry point of an application and concluding with the hiring of an employee. The researcher identified reference points where an action or an event could alter if an application was either continued or removed from the selection process. These reference points were primarily identified through the themed subgroups surrounding screener accounts of informal decisions. In some cases, the informal decision to accept an application required that multiple criteria be met; as such, these instances were considered a single reference point. Using these reference points, original illustrations of the application process were modified by the emerging evidence from the themed subgroups.

With each case the fourth round of analysis used constant comparison to further develop (and test the depictions) theoretical analysis towards a better understanding of how social relationships and interactions amongst a participant and individuals (i.e. co-workers, job-seekers, and others) impacted informal decisions. In CAMC, S8 had a unique relationship with all screeners as a central figure that facilitated collecting and distributing applicant information from background checks and accounts of personal interactions. Also in CAMC, it was the comparison of the themed subgroups that lead to the development of the minor differences in the definition of job-hopper which played a central role in early informal decisions as identified in the number of screeners referencing this term. It was the examination of these interactions that helped identify the impact of a majority/minority influence, how information is weighted, if inappropriate information and criteria are used, and if an assessor’s influence is present (see Dewberry, 2011).

Also in this analysis, field experiences, the organisational environment, screener actions, and working conditions help develop an understanding of informal decisions that are not offered in laboratory conditions (Patton, 2002; Peräkylä, 2005). During this stage of analysis, it was important to identify that individuals not having executed an Informed Consent Form (see Appendix 1) might have been included in earlier analysis. As such, it was important to omit those discussions from the final transcripts and analysis. With CAMC, those omissions were frequent as constant interruptions occurred. However, the decision to include some of this data was based on its relevance and the ability to anonymise the source. In most cases, these interactions were between the job-seeker and the screener.

-91-

Overall, the fourth round of analysis was used to strengthen the emergence of themed subgroups by identifying their relationships to each other whilst seeking answers to the research questions. The results of this process form the case study chapters 4, 5, and 6.

Finally, all cases were compared and contrasted to develop an understanding of how this data relates to current knowledge. Using the Selection Paradigm (see chapter 1) as a central point, the case findings with the prior research (see chapter 2) are reconciled through the process of constant comparison. By identifying similar themes and delimitating (the process of reducing subgroups) some themes, the underlying process of informal decisions can be discovered. The choice to delimit and consolidate themes was primarily based on the reference points associated with the depictions of the Application Process. This lead to the development of the Cycle of Employment where certain informal decisions were only considered after a decision stage. For example, drugs testing and background checks were only conducted after a provisional offer of employment was accepted. Under GT analysis, the evidence from the data collected prevails over prior research. As such, the literature provided support that enhanced the theoretical relevance of this thesis. When conflicts arose between thesis and academics, those findings were noted. The results of this final analysis form the basis of chapter 7.

To summarise, preliminary interpretations were made and refined with each infusion of data with each additional case until the researcher was satisfied that theoretical saturation had occurred (Charmaz, 2008). This process extended to each interview in an effort to promote consistency in coding data. To strengthen theory creditability, cases were not presented in overly complex manners but by basic elements with detailed descriptions (Glaser, 1978; Judd et al., 1991). After the final write-up of each case study, basic elements were integrated within the consolidated theory through constant comparison (Corbin &

Strauss, 1990). Constant comparison allowed for reflections concerning relationships surrounding informal decisions and the research question. Thus, theory emerged after the accumulation of data and information was integrated within this research (Glaser, 1978;

Glaser & Strauss, 1967).