Introduction: analysis of data

I began to analyse the data by transcribing the recordings from the semi-structured interviews with six participants - refer to Figure 3.9 Steps in analysis for complete plan of analysis. The interview data was supplemented by the participants’

comments on researcher-generated photographs and included those made by the men in relation to completing the diagram of “closeness”. In addition to this data, I had kept accounts of regular meetings with one participant who was in the process of becoming a father over the length of a year’s contact and was able to make reference to a reflective journal, in which I took notes of the study as it progressed. I used the journal to record the facts and feelings of my own research journey and my observations of the participants as the study progressed. I was able to triangulate the combined data from a variety of perspectives (Cohen et al., 2018). My aim was to analyse the comments made in each man’s narrative, comparing and contrasting the data across the corpus of comments and reactions to photographs and

diagrams, in order to find any similarities or differences that would answer the research question

What are the fathering experiences of young Irish men who have been early school leavers?

The data findings would, I anticipated, add to our knowledge of the factors surrounding young men’s experiences of fathering and demonstrate how that childhood experience impacted on their own education and their attitudes towards education for their children. Recognising that some poor literacy readers can be better visual readers than readers of print and are capable of understanding context

109 and content by using images (Kluth, 2017), I had to decide how best to capture the sentiment of the spoken word in a visual format. Furthermore, as Kress (2003) argues, “the difference in meaning depends on the relation of the depicted entities to each other in the frame of the picture-space” (p.3). Visually looking at how aspects of their life stories fitted together could offer a viable method for seeing the elements of their life stories in one space (see Figure 3.6). I set out with a three- step approach to representing the data: first, I listened to the words; second, I transcribed the words; and third, I represented those words into images.However, Kress (2003) argues that “There are things you can do with sound that you cannot do with graphic substance, either easily or at all” (p.4) and this highlights how

difficult it was to include tone of voice or expression of feelings into the pictures (see Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.6: Jim’s story booklet: “I can do the same for my kids”

As I reread the events of each experience, I was interpreting and capturing their meaning in a visual manner; and the images brought each man’s story together. As a non-artist, I made the images simple: I drew and changed the drawings as I progressed through the interviews

“The way my dad was with me, made me the person I am today”

“The love and the care he had for us, at least I can do the same for my kids” Jim

110 I added speech bubbles to hold comments and relevant conversation “bites” when I felt that images alone could not totally represent the unfolding narratives. I placed the collection of images into a photographic album holder, where it was possible to remove any images the men were unhappy with when returned to them. I found that the act of drawing brought a deeper understanding of the men’s life experiences and that the relationship between listening, reading and drawing brought a more intimate knowing of the men’s narratives. The creation of the story books allowed for some familiarising of the memories and feelings elicited in the narratives, however, I needed to analyse the body of data collected in the interviews in more detail.

Figure 3.7: Josh’s story booklet: “No one should be treated like she has treated me”

Braun and Clarke (2006) suggest that more than one method of analysis can be used when examining the data corpus and in this research study it was necessary to consider several approaches to analysing the data in more depth. Throughout the interviews, I had been aware that the men conversed with me in a natural dialogue and I was at first drawn to consider conversational analysis as an analytical method. I considered Hutchby and Woofitt’s (2008) claim that conversation analysis is the

“This is the worst year of my life”

“Yes, I think I am the dad” “No one should be treated like she has treated me” Josh

111 study of “talk-in-interaction” and shows how “participants understand and respond to one another in their turn at talking” (p.14). The advantage of this analysis is that it concentrates on the points of interest as raised by the participants and looks at how conversation begins and closes. Edley and Wetherell’s (1999) critique of

conversation analysis is that it is too restrictive, as the analysis can be too broad and not focused enough on the content and I had to agree that, as the interviews followed a definite line of enquiry, they were not free-flowing conversations. Rather, the conversations followed a definite focus of enquiry. Another approach I

considered was narrative analysis. Narrative analysis is described as an emphasis on the “artfulness of talk” (Smith and Sparkes, 2005, p.226); how language gives meaning and ownership to the narrator. As Smith and Sparkes (2005) point out, it is a method of examining how interviewees “monitor, manage, modify and revise the emergent story” (p.225); and it can be especially useful to examine facets of stories that may show contradictions or those that are not consistent. However, I felt that this method had the potential for being seen by the men as judgemental of their narrative expression and I preferred to view the data as “life stories mediated

through memory” (Brannen, 2013, p.3). As such, their narration used their own personal sociocultural ways of presentation and I valued their expression of this.