Qualitative data analysis

The analysis of the qualitative data was conducted simultaneously as the data was collected. Grounded theory is built upon the idea that analysis and self-reflection over the data, while the data is being collected, is a vital element in constructing a quality study and theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Oktay, 2012). Memos were used to remind me of important thoughts and to document the progression of the study (Davies, 2007; Oktay, 2012). The use of memos allowed me a location to examine, expand, and integrate ideas generated throughout the project thereby enabling me to better understand not only the theory but the viewpoints presented to me (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed with periodic pauses to memo as needed (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Field notes and personal reflections were indexed by interviewee and date (Davies, 2007). The evolution of the theory progressed as the interviewer’s preconceptions were challenged and new understanding was established with the topic (Davies, 2007; Oktay, 2012). This personal idea evolution continued

throughout the study.

The interview transcripts were analysed line by line to develop a range of possible codes. This first stage of grounded theory analysis is called Open Coding (Oktay, 2012). Open coding involved reading and listening to the interviews with the intent to identify specific words or phrases that evoked an emotional or conceptual response from the participant. Additionally, larger pauses within the interview, when the participant was thinking about a concept or question, also indicated that potentially important messages were going to follow. The use of analogy or personal recollections also became a primer for discovering relevant messages (Gouling, 2002; Oktay, 2012; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). A line-by-line coding of the field notes and interview transcripts allowed me to focus on the content in detail without trying to

understand the entire transcript or interview experience ‘in one bite’ (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).

Concept construction was performed by looking at the selected codes for each interview and comparing them to the codes derived from previous and subsequent interviews. Each interview was read or listened to multiple times throughout the qualitative analysis in order to further support or oppose the inclusion of a certain code within the concept level of construction (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Categories were constructed with this recognition of similarities between the content of the narratives and

between the interviews as a group (Gouling, 2002; Oktay, 2012; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The created categories were then refined using axial coding.

Axial coding provided an alternate manner in which to view the information. It involves the examination of the context, the conditions, and the consequences for each identified category in relationship with other categories (Gouling, 2002; Oktay, 2012; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The researcher, for each category, asks questions such as ‘what causes this category to exist?’, ‘What intervening conditions exist?’, ‘What are the consequences of this category’s existence?’ and ‘What is going on here?’ (Oktay, 2012). The explicit focus of examining each category in this manner helped me understand the dynamics and drivers between categories.

The interviewing process continued until the novelty of information was exhausted, such as when interview participants were stating narratives that were repetitive with previous interviewees’

statements. The lack of new theoretical information is termed theoretical saturation and it refers to the “stage at which categories seem to cope adequately with new data without requiring continual

extensions and modifications” (Day, 1999 p. 117).

I utilized different question foci at this point to direct the narrative toward areas that could have opened up new concepts. An example is that in the later part of my interviews I came to regard the image interpretation section to be of minor significance. I therefore allotted more time to the questions

dealing with the relationship the educator had with their co-workers, their centre managers, and the governing body of their employment. While this change did evoke some new aspects within the story of environmental education in Ontario, it also drove into areas that this study was not designed to analyse.

In an effort to ensure validated qualitative research, once the interviews were completed and I felt that theoretical saturation was complete, I emailed the participants a copy of the most congruent points I had discovered. I asked them to examine the list and contact me with any discrepancies they felt did not clearly describe the situation. No participant disagreed with my congruency points. Several agreed with the points and communicated support for the legitimacy of my research. This method of peer debriefing reduces researcher bias in a study by giving the study participants a further voice in the data

interpretation (Oktay, 2012).

Additionally, I attempted to triangulate my data with non-formal interviews and interactions as much as possible. I attempted to partially immerse myself into the environmental educator sphere by presenting preliminary findings at the Council of Outdoor Educators of Ontario (COEO) Annual Conference in both poster and oral presentations in Bracebridge, Ontario on September 21-23, 2012. During the COEO conference I talked to many outdoor and environmental educators. The conference was an excellent venue for triangulation activities because there was a vast spectrum of people with varying experiences in environmental education. I also authored a paper for the trade journal of COEO, Pathways,

summarizing my presentation and asking members to engage with me about the topic. I also wrote another article for the Ontario Society of Environmental Educators’ (OSEE) Interactions journal; again attempting for meaningful interactions from its members. Finally, I conducted a workshop at one conference educating attendees about environmental education evaluation techniques. These

immersion techniques provided triangulation, prolonged engagement, peer debriefing, and member checking strategies that minimize threats to trustworthiness (Oktay, 2012).