Interpretation and evaluation

‘And if we'd get up off our knees

Why then we'd see the forest for the trees’ ‘Gold in them hills’, Ron Sexsmith

Initial plans: I initially planned to use iterative thematic analysis of focus group and interview transcripts (Fereday and Muir - Chocrane, 2006) to identify themes and then code these themes into categories (Kervin et al., 2006). I reasoned that autoethnographic inquiry might defy a strict interpretative approach given that this kind of research tended to use less specific methods of data analysis. I intended to analyse my own writing by looking for, accuracy, sincerity and representation (Griffiths and Macleod, 2008). I wanted to identify key ideas and attempt to uncover the ‘essence’ within the writing (Gouzouasis et al., 2008). I then planned to collate findings from each of the methodologies to draw of series of conclusions. I intended to draw the different analyses together using triangulation which I understood ‘involved the comparison of multiple data sources to build a coherent analysis of data…where different perspectives that emerge from the gathered data are compared and contrasted (Kervin et al., 2006, p. 87).

I listened to all interviews and focus groups a number of times. I transcribed the interviews and focus groups which was a slow and lengthy process but had the advantage of building familiarity with the tone and substance of the stories (Kervin et al., 2006). I then read over and over the data. This was the

47

familiarisation process, asking ‘what is really going on here?’ reminiscent of Goffman’s ground breaking work in experiential analysis (Kervin et al., 2006, p. 141). I then attempted to create emerging and common areas of information. This was my first attempt at organising the data to make sense of what I had gathered. I then coded the transcripts into categories, and subsequently into sub categories, attempting to organise the data into more manageable blocks to assist with the process of ‘logico-inductive analysis’ (Kervin et al., 2006, p. 142). I then entered the chosen passages into the categories and sub categories. This involved creating the narrative or prose out of the passages of conversation. I next ordered each passage within the categories and sub categories and ordered the sub categories within each category. I named and re-named chapters and sub chapter headings. At this stage I was trying very hard to simply present an ordered and meaningful presentation of the data rather than an analysis or discussion of what this actually meant. I planned to interpret the data to inform the discussion, including the linking of those interpretations with literature that supported and discussed similar interpretations. As I have related previously it was at this stage that the neat, linear analytical approach began to unravel.

Reflections: I found it straightforward to read and find common themes within the data. I was able to present this information in coherent and clear ways as the data presentation chapters. I attempted to analyse those stories and data. That is, I thought about them a great deal. This was the beginning of a ‘working interpretive document that contains the writer’s initial attempts to make sense out of what has been learned’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011, p. 15). However, what did analysing writing the data with the objective of accuracy, sincerity and representation really mean? Indeed as Kervin et al. (2006, p. 139 and p. 142) remarked ‘researchers often note the chaos and complexities associated with analysing data within a qualitative design’ and that ‘it can be a very frustrating time for researchers.’ The process analysis, as it involves interpretation and evaluation, evolved very slowly for me, but eventually provided ‘teachable moments’ that occurred following these confusing times trying to write the discussion chapters: the realisation that I needed to read more deeply and widely; the discovery of an epistemological paradigm I felt represented my

48

ethical and moral identity but that also applied to the narratives I was attempting to unpack, and the search and identification of my voice within the stories and the investigative process. The writing and thinking process began to coalesce, as I searched for interest, authenticity and honesty – my stories and those of all of my participants.

I came across a passage from Pelias (2011, p. 666) comparing ‘flat’ and ‘engaging’ inquiries. He describes ‘flat’ pieces as pleasure less; ostentatious; disconnected from work it ought to be related to; abstract; above and across the individual; familiarly structured; and ‘forgets the vibrant relationship of form and content’. I thought immediately of the notion in music, as in my writing, of form and function. Flat writing had: simple answers; where the author is invisible; were passion less; apolitical; accepting of normative histories and stories; and claims to be the truth. In clear contrast, Pelias (2011) argued, engaging writing and exploration is: moreish; incorporates and entertains other ideas; promotes further thinking and discussion; highlights the content of the discussion, rather than privileging the form; struggles, yet manages to offer ‘cautionary’ insights; acknowledges the self in the exploration; is political; passionate; creates new spaces; ‘open doors’; is conditional; and is empathetic. I was enlivened by these characteristics of engaging writing and came to understand that these were the traits of effective and useful analysis that resonated with me, the aspects that I have tried to provide in my writing. In stark contrast, when I think of much of the quantitative evaluation that drives ‘reforms’, curriculum, education and policy at every organisational level (supporting the neoliberal conditions for modern education ‘industries’ and ‘markets’) I am reminded of the characteristics of Pelias’s ‘flat’ inquiry…