My data analysis followed the principles of grounded theory by repeatedly reading and constantly comparing the data while integrating open, axial and selective coding methods. Open coding identified and assigned data into manageable representative concepts. Axial coding examined the relationships between emerging concepts, and reassembled them into sub-categories and categories. Selective coding integrated the dominant concepts represented from both open and axial codes into a central explanatory concept which was then compared again to the transcript data from which it derived (Charmaz 2000; Corbin and Strauss 1998).
My initial analysis began in transcribing my first interview by closely examining words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs and assigning data to representative open codes. Analysing the data in this manner reduced the data into a
128
manageable framework while still representing the data at a conceptual level. For instance, one of my early interview transcripts was 20 pages in volume but after coding I reduced the transcript to one page of in vivo phrases and codes which represented the context, properties and dimensions of the data. After transcribing and coding my third interview I assembled the open codes and started the process of constant comparison by looking for regularities and irregularities. In this manner I began raising open codes into concepts (Corbin and Strauss 1998: 101- 103). The coding and concept building process was particularly useful during my preliminary analysis because it allowed me to develop micro-level analysis from each participant, a comparative meso-analysis between participants, and an overall macro-analysis of the key data themes. Preliminary analysis informed further interview enquiries throughout the theoretical sampling process.
The following data extract provides an example of my open coding process (in bold) to represent the data. I chose this extract from my third interview because a key interactional category „different self/other interactions‟ started to emerge, remained for the duration of my analysis and formed an important interactional concept of the central „new normal‟ category:
I asked: Do you think people outside your family like friends and other colleagues see you or treat you differently because of your family cancer experience?
Louise: I don‟t know if it‟s my imagination or not but I think they did, (perceived as different by generalised other) like you‟re the family who … that‟s the boy who had cancer, that‟s the mum … you sense it and feel it and sometimes you‟re emotions are so crazy you don‟t know if your paranoid or not (questioning self) but I‟m sure that‟s how it was for a long time (feeling labelled as the cancer other, but changing). It‟s best
129
if they don‟t try in some ways, they can‟t fathom it, even people ... if you actually have a talk to them open the doors (Open the cancer door) and they‟re happy about it they‟re truly shocked, like they could have known you for years and known you were going through it but until you talk about it they can‟t comprehend it, and I couldn‟t have either. (Others can’t comprehend).
My open codes then represent Louise‟s account at an initial conceptual level: Perceived as different by generalised other, questioning self, feeling labelled as the cancer other, but changing, opens the cancer door, others can‟t comprehend.
Open coding occurred concurrently with initial axial coding. Where open coding broke the data down into representative codes, axial coding brought these codes together to develop an analytical story through concepts and categories (Strauss and Corbin 1998: 123). Louise‟s data extract was then represented as an axial code of „different self/other interactions‟ through cancer. I then compared the axial code to the attributes of similar substantive concepts in the literature and found „interactional dissonance‟ as being similar to represent Louise‟s interview response. This concept derives from McKenzie and Crouch‟s (2004: 144) research to represent an interactional breakdown in meaning and communication between the ill self and carer other due to cancer experiences. Although similar, Louise‟s self/other perception was her response to a generalised rather than significant other. Through further comparisons of „different self/other interactions‟ with other interviews and literature I found Goffman‟s (1959) dramaturgical framework more representative in capturing Louise‟s front stage/back stage of interaction because of her generalised audience of „different
130
self/other interactions‟ rather than familial and/or significant others. The concept derived from Louise‟s account was comparable with other participants and formed an important attribute of the „new normal‟ category, with explanatory power to represent primary carers constructing and negotiating their social identities and realities with generalised others in the aftermath of cancer.
On finishing data collection and preliminary open coding I repeatedly read my complete data set of transcripts and refined my axial codes through further constant comparison and selective coding. This gave further legitimacy to the core concept of „new normal‟ and supported sub-categories, including
intensified/de-intensified biography, changing realities, a new identity, normalising through and after cancer, evaluating medicine and ongoing late effects management. Louise‟s data extract represented her construction of reality as a disruption in everyday interaction with generalised others, which linked empirically and conceptually to the category of „new normal‟ and identity theory (Little et al. 2002; Goffman 1959). The data extracts presented in the findings chapters were deliberately chosen after extensive constant comparison to represent all carers whose accounts clearly articulated and typified the major attributes of „new normal‟.
Throughout my research process I adopted Strauss and Corbin‟s (1998) and Charmaz‟s (1990, 2000) strategy in maintaining research memos. My fieldwork memos were working documents that include whom I was interviewing and
131
when, personal reflections on the highs and lows of the research process, and explanatory, process and theory notes. I wrote memos about each interview so when I re-read transcripts the memo notes reminded me of the mood, context and character of the original interview. My fieldwork memos therefore became a „repository‟ of my data collection and analytical ideas (Charmaz 1990: 1169), which complemented my repertoire of earlier thesis chapter drafts, notes from meetings with my academic supervisors, coding and transcript data. My memos were time intensive but an intellectually rewarding and engaging part of the research process as I could review how my analytical ideas had developed through the research process.