Level 1: Narrative analysis

There were several steps within this level that formed the groundwork for the higher levels of analysis. While producing the interview transcripts, I had the chance to familiarise myself with the data.

Once all interview transcripts and observation schedules had been completed I began reading and re-reading them to immerse myself in the data (Braun & Clark, 2006).

62

Once immersed in the data I realised the dearth of information I had obtained. I turned to narrative analysis as it served the following purposes for me:

 It was a data management mechanism to form coherence among the variety of sources and the volume of data in order to produce a coherent whole.

 It served as an interesting representational device for the data gathered. This form of narrative representation is not commonly used in the field of speech- language pathology and even more especially so when representing SLTs as participants.

 It allowed me to represent the data in a systematic manner to facilitate cross- case comparisons as the next level of data analysis. Each narrative followed a plot to compose the data into a coherent story.

 It also facilitated a telling of the participants’ stories of their experiences in practice in an interesting manner.

I used Polkinghorne’s (1995) notions of narrative analysis. Narrative researchers solicit events and happenings as data and use narrative analysis procedures to study the stories (Polkinghorne, 2007). I considered this the first instance of coding. I read and worked through each participant’s data set and extracted a core ‘take-home message’ for each participant. This then became the focal point of the narrative to provide a story structure.

63

Figure 3.3

The plot development for the narratives

Source: Adaptation of Freytag’s pyramid (1893, cited in Rolfe, Jones, & Wallace, 2010).

The narratives were produced using creative writing and short story writing techniques whereby I supplemented the detail with verbatim extracts to authenticate the narratives further and to enhance the credibility of the analysis. An adaptation of Freytag’s pyramid (1893, cited in Rolfe, Jones, & Wallace, 2010) for plot development was used to construct the narratives as shown in Figure 3.3. This began with the setting of the scene and the introduction of the main protagonists in the story, followed by the development of the plot, the climax where the problematics were heightened, the resolution of the problematics and finally the conclusion. Each of the narratives followed a simple structure. This was a deliberate choice as it aided the comparability of the narratives while doing cross-case comparisons (Chapter Six, section 6.3). The narratives went through several (about four) revisions of each as the stories became more focussed and my story-telling skills developed.

A concern was the truth-value in the construction of narratives and when using multiple data sources (Gustafsson, 2017; Loh, 2013). It was my task to remain true to the

Climax: The problematics uncovered Conclusion: Future directions Introduction: Setting the scene

64

personal truth of the participants (Loh, 2013). Therefore, verbatim phrases were used as often as possible and the member checking process became very important. Although verbatim quotes were used, the construction of the narrative was an interpretive act, which means that different levels of interpretation were used for different data sources. For example, the visual data required some degree of interpretation from the researcher. I verified these interpretations with the participants. The interpretations were further contextualised with the tone of voice of the participant, and the content of what was said through the audio and video recordings.

A key issue during the construction of the narratives was that of voice, as this choice must be a purposeful act (Polkinghorne, 2005). I chose first-person narrative, and I acknowledge both its value and limitations. I found that first-person narrative allowed the participant’s reality to be expressed better as I felt that this form of narration was more authentic to the participant as he participant was the central feature. I acknowledge that the voice of the researcher was muted but only for a short while. The power of first-person stories allowed my participants and myself to have a voice and it helped break the us–them divide between researcher and participants (Ely, 2007). Thick description of the context was an important factor for me to consider, especially if the reader might not have had exposure to SA public (government-owned) hospitals and schools. Therefore, the adjectives that were needed had to be accurately descriptive without a negative connotation as I had to be careful not to be disrespectful of the context.

According to Dubois and Gadde (2002), the researcher constructs the narrative according to an interpretation of the phenomenon. Not all the data elements can be included; therefore, it is left to the researcher to refine the plot. It is for this reason that the researcher is an active participant in the research process and the construction of the narratives are left vulnerable to the perceptions, biases and worldview of the researcher as much as the participants. More appropriately, it could be argued that narratives are co-produced by both the input of the participants and the levels of interpretation of the researcher. This is the reason why, where possible, member checking of initial narrative constructions is conducted by the participants themselves before further levels of research analysis. However, in this study this process of co- construction was mediated through a referring back of the raw data transcriptions of the interviews so that the participants had recourse to refine the propositional content

65

of the data recorded in written form. It is recognised that this negotiation between the researcher and researched is usually resisted within the traditional empirical positivistic research paradigms that suggests that the researcher should not ‘tamper with truth they are gathering’. Within an interpretivist paradigm within which this study was conducted, the role of both the researcher and the researched and their meaning making is the very focus of the exploration.

The ethical principles of anonymity and privacy of the participants had to be respected throughout the research process. However, the narrative record making constituted a process of revealing within the thick descriptions of the nuances of each specific narrative record. This ran the risk that when attributes were ascribed to a particular story it posed difficult to conceal the participants’ identity so that the participants did not become recognisable. This was especially a concern within a relatively small professional community such as speech-language therapy. Specific attention was therefore given to how the individual’s personal biographies and contexts could be anonymised and confidentiality adhered to in the construction of the narratives. 3.4.2 Level 2: Cross-case comparisons and thematic analysis

Once all the narratives had been completed, I moved on to the analysis of the narratives using line-by-line coding (Braun & Clark, 2006). As a qualitative researcher, I inductively coded the data and tried not to let personal biases interfere with the coding process (Flick, 2014). I was however, cognisant of the a priori categories from my theoretical framework. This, together with the critical questions of the study, helped guide me to identify six factors that influence the negotiation of communication strategies of SLTs during clinical engagement. These factors were policy, student training and continued learning, world of work context, cultural and power matters between SLTs and families and the client, the practitioner’s experience of speech- language therapy, and cross-linguistic–cross-cultural communication. I used the verbatim quotes from the participants to augment and support my comments. I developed commentary boxes after discussing each of the factors. In these synthetic commentaries, I succinctly brought to the fore the ‘take-home message’ for the reader. Thereafter, I inputted these commentaries into a table in line with the literature review concepts and the theories and frameworks from the theoretical frameworks so that I could abstract themes further. This process required several attempts and many

66

consultations with supervisors and peers before I was satisfied with the themes that had been produced.

Once I did this, I found that I could ‘sit above the data’ and I could generate themes from the narrative data. I engaged in deep analysis of the themes where I could identify specific situations and circumstances that affected the individuals. This allowed me to explore the resonances and dissonances across the narratives in relation to the phenomenon I was studying. The themes that I generated were:

 productive remembering of the educational experience;  problematising clinical engagement;

 undervaluing of speech-language therapy;  searching for certainty; and

 moving to comfort

There were two cases that deviated from the pattern of data findings (see section 7.4) Often referred to as ‘negative cases’, the outlier data is often considered a valuable strategy for assessing the credibility or validity of qualitative research claims (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The term ‘outliers’ has traditionally been associated with the positivist orientation, however I wish to reappropriate the term in this qualitative study to consider the negative or deviant cases in my research.

Please refer to Appendix T for an example of the Level 2 analysis process. 3.4.3 Level 3: Dialogue with the literature and theoretical framework

Theorising is an iterative skill that requires intuitive and creative ways of thinking (Sonday, 2016). This third level of analysis comprised a process of taking the data through greater levels of abstraction, which facilitated the extension of existing theories and coining of new terms to develop a new framework to understand the phenomenon being studied better. The theorising process began by selecting theories that made up my temporary theoretical lens, which influenced the theorising of the research methods and design. Theorising around the constructs of uncertainty in the world of academe and in the world of work led to implications for clinical practice and future research. Through this sense-making processes that drew on interpretivism and philosophy, new constructs relevant to the study started emerging.

67

3.5 Synthesis of the chapter

This chapter provided a detailed description of the research methodology. A case study methodology was used to illustrate the phenomenon of communicative competence as it is enacted in the world of work of SLTs. The participant sample comprised eight purposively selected participants. Three data collection tools were used, i.e. the pre-observation interview schedule, the observation schedule, and the post-observation interview schedule. The data was analysed using narrative analysis as the first level of data analysis. A discussion around the development of the narratives and the coherence between the data methods and narrative analysis was presented.

68