Principles of analysis

As mentioned previously, there are several variants of the grounded theory methodology first proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), but the key principles remain the same. In broad terms the grounded theory method is one where a theory is emergent, not a method that is using a predefined or formulated hypothesis or theory to be tested. The aim is that a theory emerges and is built from the data gathered rather than data verifying a

predetermined hypothesis or theory. As Flick (2009: 90) asserts “the grounded theory approach gives priority to the data and the field under study over theoretical assumptions”. The generation of any theory is as a result of, and in tandem with, systematic data

collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2005), and patterns, concepts and any theory are within the data itself. Grounded theory is “inductive and deductive, it is iterative and close to the data that give rise to it” (Cohen et al., 2011: 598). What is recognised is that the world in which people live is complex (Glaser, 2002) and messy, and there are interconnections between people (Cohen et al., 2011). This must all be considered when embarking on the analysis: trying to make sense of this complexity and staying true to the messiness: “inconsistencies, contradictions, discontinuities and relatedness in actions” (Cohen et al., 2011: 598). Flick (2009: 91) asserts that the aim with grounded theory is not to simplify the complexity through breaking it into simple variables but to “increase complexity by accepting context”. There is also “circularity” (Flick, 2009: 92) built into the process

where the researcher is continually reflecting on the process, and is moving between collecting and interpreting the data. The process is not linear. The aim therefore in this study was not to confirm or refute current theories or hypotheses about why boys appear to underachieve but to try to establish new thinking tied directly to the data collected. This might have meant that what was revealed was only applicable to School A, but the conclusions would be indisputably linked directly to the data gathered.

7.2.1 Definitions of terms

Different terms are used by different researchers, and so for clarity some basic definitions of the terms used here are listed.

Context

In grounded theory the context is important. “Action doesn’t just occur, it occurs in response to something” (Corbin and Holt, (2011: 115). The conditions or the context that people respond to can make them respond differently. The context is an integral part of grounded theory methodology. There are two contexts in this thesis. Firstly, the ‘school’ context, with the data being gathered from three different schools with their different cultures. The data gathered of how people respond in these settings is unique to the setting itself and that context. Secondly, the ambition was to explore if an emergent grounded theory could be applied to a wider ‘educational’ context by exploring how the theory transferred between the three schools. The suggestions for explanation and action relating to the phenomenon under study, beyond the three schools and to the wider educational context, would be speculative because of context being fundamental to grounded theory development.

Data

The use of the word data in the context of qualitative research is contested (Briggs et al., 2012). In the qualitative world, where the type of information reported could be

description, interpretation, concepts, values, and beliefs, the word ‘data’ may not seem appropriate as it has a connotation of being linked to facts or metrics of the world of quantitative research. Briggs et al. (2012: 386) suggest that some researchers see the qualitative world as not based on objective facts but on a “reality that is socially

constructed and that truths are negotiated by actors in specific contexts”. This may well be the case as the material being gathered relates to someone trying to give voice to their own lived experiences within a specific context, which may appear real to them but a

construction to others. Data is the term used in this research study to mean all of the qualitative information, verbal and non-verbal: the participants’ verbal responses, gestures and interactions in the interviews. It also covers memos to capture pertinent points related to the participants’ responses, gestures, and interactions of participants. The data also includes all of the interpretations: the coding and concepts that are inferred from the responses to the questions, which are exemplified in the worked example in Appendix 10 and in the conceptual maps for the different sets of interviews conducted (Chapter 8). The ‘memos’ or notes taken during the analytical process are also classed as data as this has aided the interpretation of the data gathered through interview. Data is also the quantitative data of examination statistics, which informed the analysis discussed in Chapter 2.

Description

Much of what is heard through the gathering of data is not conceptual or abstract but descriptive. Participants answering questions give accounts of what has happened in their lives, describing the world from their perspective: grounded in their world. A researcher, in attempting to interpret what is being said, can rewrite what the participant has said as a description. The description can be a way of the researcher making sense of what the participant has said. Both the participant and the researcher are influenced by the context in which they live, or as described by Bourdieu (1990): ‘habitus’, ‘capital’ and ‘field’

(Chapter 3: 58). It is important that the researcher is as accurate as possible with

description. However, the researcher must have the skills of interpretation and inference because of the nature of what is being said, for example perspectives on gender, where there is some ambiguity, or where the meaning is not clear. This use of description is sometimes necessary for clarity, and descriptions can be useful when attempting to

elaborate on the richness and depth of meaning of an abstract thought or idea arising from the analysis. However, it is important that the researcher is aware that to give a description is not conceptualisation (Glaser, 2002).

Two examples are given below where description was used to interpret what was said. The codes generated are still descriptive but do have elements of conceptualisation. The

concepts assigned to the codes are also given below. Example 1

Extract from the transcript:

“…more a group worker and do more work in that class (Spanish) because in groups - helps a lot - because if do not understand something can bounce off

someone else.” (B17)31

The code generated for this statement: ‘Groupwork allows for peer support when not understanding something.’ The addition of ‘peer support when not understanding

something’ may only be attributable to this one boy and may not be transferable and so is ‘descriptive’ whereas ‘groupwork’ is more abstract and as such became a concept. Including the additional material in the code adds depth and understanding and is useful when referring back to the codes during conceptualisation and categorisation.

The conceptualisation of this code was ‘qualifying engaging learning methodology’. The concept of ‘groupwork’, and what was inferred from the participant’s statement (the description) gave a sense that the participant understood what worked for him in terms of engaging him in learning hence ‘groupwork’ was linked to the more abstract concept of ‘qualifying engaging learning methodology’.

Example 2

Extract from the transcript:

“If there is a teacher who is rambling on, the guys’ minds are somewhere else, whereas the girls are more focussed.” (B4)

The code generated for this statement: ‘Teachers talking to the class – boys’ minds drift: girls focused’. This is a description and is specific to this one statement but again adds some colour to aid the understanding of this boy’s perceptions. It does indicate a gender duality stance and so the conceptualisation of this code is ‘conceptualising gender identity/learner identity.’

Code

This is used in this research to mean the reinterpretation by the researcher of the raw data into a more concise phrase. This could be a description or could take the form of a concept. Concepts are at the heart of grounded theory, but not all interpretations of the original data have been conceptualised but have been left as description. However, all data was coded to ensure that nothing was lost. Appendix 10 illustrates the codes developed to interpret and to give meaning to what the participant said. In some cases, this is straightforward but in other cases there is more reliance on the researcher’s ability of interpretation.Codes are

31 _{Note: the code in brackets refers to the participant(s). The codes for all the participants in all three schools} are shown in table 8.1

further qualified in the literature into open, axial and selective codes (Cohen et al., 2011). In simple terms open coding is when meaning is given to the data, and phrases are

developed that give further understanding and abstraction to the data where possible, synthesising until all the coding is complete. Axial coding is a process of finding links between the codes and categories: looking for connections (Moghaddam, 2006; Corbin and Strauss, 2015: 156). The example in the last section of ‘groupwork’ being linked to the concept of ‘qualifying engaging learning methodology’ is axial coding. Selective coding is where a core category is identified with which other categories and codes fit and theory generation is then possible: it provides the “story line” (Creswell, 2007: 67).

Concepts

This is the term applied by researchers to new ideas or notions that have arisen from scanning the data and are from an abstract perspective. It is the interpretation of the data from the stance of the researcher not the participant (Corbin and Holt, 2011). Different authors have different definitions of a ‘concept’. Corbin and Holt (2011) define this as “an abstract interpretation of a piece of data” (p. 114) with Glaser (2002) defining concept as “the naming of an emergent social pattern grounded in research data” (p. 24). The two defining features for concepts, according to Glaser, are that they are “abstract of time, place and people, and that concepts have enduring grab” (p 24)

…because grounded theory operates at a conceptual level, relating concept to

concept, it can tap the latent structure which is always there and drives and organises behaviour and its social psychological aspects, all of which are abstract of objective fact (Glaser, 2002: 26).

Concepts allow patterns to be seen in the data that can lead to data being grouped under a conceptual idea: ideas that have the same root. This begins to synthesise the data under a number of headings. Concepts appear in this study both in the coding, for example ‘seeing parents as influential’ (BB5) and also the higher level concepts that synthesise the codes, for example‘competitiveness’.

Category

A category is the name given to a group of concepts. (Categories are sometimes referred to in the literature as themes but this has been avoided here). Where concepts can be grouped under a more generic heading a category is born. The category is more abstracted and at a higher level (Corbin and Holt, 2011). Categorisation demands interpretative skills of the researcher. In this study, the three categories that appeared to group the concepts were ‘self-awareness of effective learning’; ‘self-awareness of barriers to learning’ and

‘perception of gender identity’. Grounded theory

Theory is the highest level in grounded theory methodology. The aim of the theory is to give an interpretation, from the perspective of the researcher, of why people act within a specific context or set of circumstances that are relevant to their lives. The theory should take account of all the data and ‘fit’ with the data (Glaser, 2002). The test for the theory is if it can be transferable to more than the unique situation being examined, but it is

important to emphasise that this should still be within the context of the problem or phenomenon being investigated (Cohen et al., 2011). Because of the nature of the theory development, it is not expected that a theory would be applicable to any context otherwise it would no longer be a grounded theory. For example, in this study as explained later in this chapter, a possible tentative emergent grounded theory suggested as a result of the interviews with the boys in School A was that boys’ self-realisation of successful learning is being limited by an essentialist construction of gender, with gender stereotypical characteristics. Gender is constructed as being bipolar and with these two categories being mutually exclusive. The theory attempts to give an interpretation of all the data gathered and is a synthesis of the codes and categories assigned.

Properties and dimensions

During the process of assigning codes, concepts and then grouping into categories, it becomes apparent that some of the original codes and concepts give the detail and richness to a particular category. These codes/concepts then take on the form of a property of the category: a way of giving the category more substance or quality. Dimensions are the researcher’s interpretation of the size of the contribution of a particular concept or category from the data gathered. How important did this appear from the perspective of the

participant? “Properties and dimensions are the conceptual descriptors or qualifiers of each category … and define and differentiate each category” (Corbin and Holt, 2011: 115). In this study, conceptualisation led to concepts such as ‘influence of the teacher’, ‘motivation’ and ‘peer pressure’. As the process continued with the iterative method applied of continually revisiting the codes, concepts were grouped and conflated, for example, ‘motivation’, ‘confidence’, ‘competitiveness’, although concepts, became

properties of a new concept ‘characteristics of the learner’, which in turn was a property of the category ‘perceptions of factors influencing boys’ learning’. To try to give some indication of attention given by the participants to different aspects that could be

influencing learning dimensions were given for each of the concepts. In this study, this is shown by the size of the boxes in the conceptual maps developed to give a pictorial representation of the concepts.

Theoretical sampling

This is one of the underpinning tenets of grounded theory. The data is collected on an ongoing, iterative basis. The data collected and the concurrent analysis of the data then influences future data collection: from whom and what is being sought (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). As mentioned in Chapter 6, this term theoretical sampling is also similar to the term intensive interviewing (Charmaz, 2014). For example, it became apparent from the first interviews that the teacher and relevance of learning were being raised by the participants as impacting on their learning. This was then followed up in further interviews as part of the intensive interviewing process, theoretically sampling for these concepts by asking supplementary questions, with questions being as open as possible. Theoretical sampling, by seeking views about particular concepts of more participants than planned, was not possible because of thenature of the access to the schools. However, enough interviews were set up to achieve saturation in School A.

7.2.2 Process of analysis

The process of analysis begins with scanning the qualitative data gathered. The aim of the scanning process is to seek explanations and interpretations (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This scanning is accompanied by coding, with the data coded for meaning, seeking concepts and then categorisation (Charmaz, 2014) all in an iterative or ‘circular’ process (Flick, 2009), with the aim of applying axial coding to develop linkages between the categories and/or a framework that could develop into a tentative theory.

The systematic analysis of data is fundamental to this method. To be able to draw from all the data gathered, and leave nothing out, the analysis relies on careful transcription. As explained a full, thorough and accurate transcription was carried out for all interviews to include all the detail and nuance of what was being said. This systematic process gave rich data from which to draw. The transcription process was deliberately not given to a third party but completed personally to be able to hear again what was being said and any nuances that were worth noting. In grounded theory, as soon as the first interview is completed the process of analysis begins.

codes, concepts, and tags whatever the researcher has decided to input by way of criteria. However, it was decided, despite the large amount of data to handle, to do the analysis by inspection. It was felt that the continual scrutiny and personal interpretation of the data, allowed meaning to be developed to deepen thinking about the phenomenon under investigation, as well as being able to adopt a conceptual stance that was not limited by predetermined criteria. I was not convinced that this same level of engagement with the data could be achieved through the use of a software package. I also felt that the nuancing of what was being said by the interviewees could only be considered by examining and re- examining the data personally.

The first stage in the analytical process is to carry out coding – to assign codes to the raw data gathered (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 2014). When coding, the qualitative data can be considered in large paragraphs or sections, or in a more nuanced way by individual words or phrases, or by each line (Corbin and Holt, 2011; Cohen et al., 2011). The method preferred in this research was ‘line-by-line’ coding as advocated by Charmaz (2014) and described by Corbin and Holt (2011: 114) as ‘micro-analysis’. This micro- analysis demands that each line of a transcript is scrutinised carefully, and then meaning given to each line of data. This is a time consuming process but ensures that no idea or concept is lost in the analysis. Coding aims to give a way of making sense of the data collected: looking more deeply, questioning, and being able to sort the data to lead to synthesis of ideas and actions. Line-by-line coding should lead to each piece of data being summarised. The code should define what is happening and so find meaning from the stance of the participant (Charmaz, 2014). In this study I have described this process as ‘initial’ coding (Charmaz, 2014) as it is a first attempt to understand what is being said. It is important to be conscious of being analytical when considering the coding rather than descriptive, although in the first instance description was sometimes the result because of the descriptive nature of what was being said. The aim of coding is to move beyond description to conceptualisation. Every effort was made to be as objective as possible although, being the tool used to interpret the data, interpretation can be influenced by one’s experiences and could be reflected in the coding, and so it was important to “remain open”