Group discussion to evaluate the module

On the last day of class, immediately after completing their written module evaluation forms, the participants engaged in a 30 minute group discussion to evaluate the module. The verbatim transcript was read several times and the most salient comments were collated. These comments were then triangulated with those from the student evaluation forms. In the process, the original three categories from the student evaluation forms were amended and refined. Lastly, these categories were compared with the evaluation form master comment list to confirm that the categories were an accurate reflection of the two data sources.

4.7.4 Post-module individual interviews

Because I was concerned about using an interpretative approach to analysing the interview data, I sought to construct a version of the data which reflected the

participants‟ interpretations or understandings of how they experienced the module and what influence they felt it had on their subsequent EBP behaviour. The constructivist epistemology of my study led me to focus on how people create and re-create their realities according to the meanings they find in their differing situations as described by Guba and Lincoln (2005).

I began my analysis of the individual interviews by engaging in what Creswell (2003) calls the generic steps to data analysis (pp. 191-195):

1. Organise and prepare the data

2. Read through data to get a general sense of the information and reflect on its overall meaning

3. Begin detailed analysis with a coding process which organises material into „chunks‟

86

5. Develop a narrative „passage‟ to represent or convey the themes

6. Make an interpretation or meaning of the data and discuss lessons learned. During step one I organised and prepared the data by having a professional transcriber type out verbatim transcripts of each interview which were emailed to the seven respective participants for member checking and corrections. Following corrections, transcripts were re-formatted using pseudonyms.

For step two, I read through all of the transcripts several times to gain a holistic appreciation of the data. I made notes, in what became my coding diary, regarding my thoughts about the data. Having a written record of my evolving thinking helped me to clarify my ideas. For example, the literature reports (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Guba and Lincoln, 2005; Mason, 2002) that interviewees have a tendency to give accounts of events that accentuate consistency and suppress contradiction; hence I noted this concern in my coding diary at this „whole data‟ reading stage. In addition, I drew up thumbnail sketches of each participant based upon impressions they made upon me in reading the interviews and also aspects of their personalities that I had come to appreciate since the beginning of the module. For example, among other comments, I noted that Tara was a lone therapist working with professionals from other disciplines. In class and during the interview, she talked at length about waging professional boundary battles; oftentimes using a combative-sounding language. On the other hand, she was also very interested in learning strategies for introducing change in the

workplace in a subtle way so as to bring other stakeholders on board. I continually added to these sketches in my coding diary as they enabled me to keep a vivid image of each participant in the forefront of my mind as I made coding decisions. I used these sketches to help ensure that any coding decisions I made would capture these salient aspects of their personalities.

I also used the diary to summarise and reflect upon different possible coding strategies reported in the literature; particularly those of Patton (2002), Mason (2002), Miles & Huberman (1994), and Saldana (2009). I recorded my arguments and counter-arguments about which one might best capture the data. For example, Miles and Huberman (1994) recommend creating a general accounting scheme for codes which is not content specific but rather indicates general domains or areas in which codes can be developed. They suggest: acts, actions, meanings, participation, relationships and setting. Mason

87

(2002) proposes: actions, attitudes, understandings and practices. Saldana (2009) advises: activities, characteristics, and outcomes. I blended their suggestions with Knowles et al.‟s (2005) adult learning theoretical model as I felt those of Mason and Saldana, in particular, were too broad and didn‟t discriminate enough about the learning process. I listed domains17 under which I thought I would most probably develop codes. This list had little impact on the themes which emerged during step four as the domains were only intended to help me mentally organise an ever-expanding code list for easy consultation and data handling (management).

Step three involved a more detailed data analysis through coding. I decided to do a combination of two forms of affective first cycle coding described by Saldana (2009): values coding and evaluation coding. I felt they would best capture the broad meaning- making regarding unfolding EBP learning and the more specific programme evaluation aspects; both being important components of PAR. I found these two coding forms to be in harmony with my study‟s theoretical framework while addressing my second

research aim of analysing the learning process from the clinical therapists‟ perspective in order to evaluate the IETP module‟s influence on therapists‟ engagement in EBP.

Values coding, as the label implies, is the application of codes that reflect an

interviewee‟s values, attitudes and beliefs regarding him/ her, another person, a thing or idea. Values codes are perceived as reflecting the interviewee‟s concepts or beliefs which emanate from his/her personal knowledge, experiences, opinions, prejudices, morals and other interpretive perceptions of the social world (Saldana, 2009).

Evaluation coding is the application of non-quantitative terms or codes to qualitative data with the aim of making judgments about the merit and worth of a programme. The usually descriptive terms reflect participant observations or responses to attributes and details that assess quality. The coded section of text might explore how the program measures up to a standard or ideal. Or it may provide recommendations for change, if needed, and how such changes might be implemented (Saldana, 2009).

I began the first cycle coding process by listing the domains under which I thought I would most probably develop codes. As I carefully re-read each interview, I highlighted

17 _{These were: 1) personal attitudes; 2) prior experience of learner; 3) readiness to learn; 4) orientation to}

learning; 5) motivation to learn; 6) need to know; 7) self concept; 8) understandings; 9) actions/ activities; 10) work setting; 11) characteristics of module; 12) assessment of module; 13) outcomes; 14) action research process.

88

short chunks or slices of text. Each slice had discrete meaning when isolated from information which came before or after it. Each slice was labelled with an indexing category referred to as a term or code. During this initial coding process all text was coded, except for short social exchanges. The multiple-word code assigned to any one slice came from values or evaluation-focused thoughts which the participants‟ words evoked in my mind.18

To facilitate consistently applying my set of codes to the data, and easy retrieval of specific text slices, I decided to use Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis

(CADAS) software. After researching several, I chose Ethnograph as it appeared easy to use and was inexpensive to purchase. Besides rendering the highlighting of text very easy, Ethnograph allows constant monitoring of what codes already exist as one engages in the coding process. Ethnograph permitted me to quickly locate any code within its domain list; and each code had an easy-to-consult definition. Hence I could rapidly decide if this or that pre-existing code captured this or that slice of text, or if the text needed a new code. This helped me to avoid redundant coding. The list of domains, initial codes (including definitions) and one individual coded transcript were emailed to each of the seven students for member checking in July 2011. If they had not agreed with any of the coding (whether they agreed with the domains was irrelevant as they existed only for code retrieval purposes) I would have re-consulted the text and re- considered the assigned code. This situation did not arise, however.

Creswell‟s (2003) fourth step of data analysis involves more focused, second cycle coding. By now my coding diary had expanded to include reflexive and analytical (methods) memos to myself, which I wrote throughout the coding process. During this step I repeatedly reviewed and reflected upon the first cycle‟s codes and adjunctive slices of text or quotes. I made different versions of concept-mapping diagrams through inductive reasoning. As described by Mason (2002, p. 180), inductive reasoning is where:

the researcher will develop theoretical propositions or explanations out of the data in a process which is commonly seen as moving from the particular to the general.

18

Examples of generated values codes would be: feel more in synch with new grads, being respected, re-

affirming who I am. Generated evaluation codes included: clarifying messy points, communicating knowledge, using EBP steps, multi-disciplinary learning.

89

While moving between the particular and the general (and back again) my thinking was within a „hermeneutic circle‟ (see section 3.2) where I was attempting to comprehend a slice of text (the part) by understanding the contexts (the whole) within which it was produced, while at the same time appreciating the contexts by understanding the text. My diagrams graphically represented a matrix of relationships between different groupings of codes; groupings which were not impacted by my domain boundaries. Eventually over-arching themes, or families as they are called in Ethnograph, emerged. The themes served to build additional layers of more complex analysis. They allowed me to make an interpretation as to the meaning of the data (Creswell‟s step five). These themes were then examined for their applicability to each student case and across different cases. If a theme did not „ring true‟ with every participant I explored the contradictions using personal reflexivity (see section 4.9 below) as documented in my coding diary. The process of checking themes against the transcripts and modifying them when necessary continued until I found I was no longer making changes. Each theme was then illustrated by diverse quotations to display multiple perspectives in the construction of a „lessons learned‟ narrative (Creswell‟s step six) about how the module influenced therapists‟ subsequent engagement in EBP activities, as described in Chapter seven.