Reflecting on the coding process

4.6.1 Conceptual Overlap

As analysis of the data progressed I would periodically revisit each conceptual code with a view to reassessing the classification and assignment of properties to their related concepts. I considered this to be an integral and necessary element of the ‘constant comparison’ process, which acted as a form of ‘relationship safeguarding’, where the continued conceptual relevance of properties to their assigned concepts could be verified, validated and clarified as the underlying data driving their relationship evolved over time.

The process confirmed whether, in light of new realisations, understanding, and clarity, the property, or properties were still congruent with an overall understanding of the concept, as it stood at that point in time. On a number of occasions I was confronted by properties that appeared to have been misclassified in terms of their conceptual relevance, but I would always need to remind myself that (in the absence of a bona fide error) there would always have been a prior valid reason for the allocation, which would inevitably force me to refer back to the raw empirical data, field notes, and conceptual memos for reassurance. For many, I would be satisfied, and the original classification would stand, as outlined in the following examples of confusion that arose between sub-categories.

4.6.2 Assigning ambiguous properties to concepts

During analysis, properties exhibiting potential relevance to more than one conceptual indicator would frequently arise. The conceptual code Control (RQ1:SC2) offers a good example when comparing the conceptual indicators Competition and Employment, thus:

- 185 -

outsourcing; global competition (x2); global connectivity; open to all;

global marketplace; overseas talent; competitive advantage;

competitive edge; mission-critical; differentiation from competitors

Competition (11)

remote working; gig economy (x2); local unemployment; outsourcing Employment (5)

Both were similarly ranked in terms of their conceptual relevance, but quite distinct with respect to their underlying meaning. When faced with the property of outsourcing, which occurred twice in the relevant empirical excerpt, it was initially deemed to be an expressed property of Employment. During a later stage of analysis however, it was determined to have equal relevance to both Competition and Employment. In order to resolve such ambiguity, a step needed to be taken back in order to consider the intended nuance and usage behind the properties, as originally portrayed in context at the interview stage. Referring back to the original interview excerpts giving rise to both properties:

RQ1:SC2

#3 ST13

“Our direct competitors now outsource most-all of their non-specialist functions to overseas companies willing to do the work for less. They save a small fortune on admin staff in the process, and in some way, gain a competitive advantage over us because they can spend more time and money on the things that matter, like improving their products, and gaining more market share. We are losing out big-time.”

and

RQ1:SC2

#4

ST14

“With the E-lance and UpWork web sites, we can now outsource any specialist requirements we have to the so-called ‘gig’ economy, where hundreds or thousands of willing freelancers located in all corners of the world are willing to bid on the work. Much of our work gets subcontracted to Indians, who always do a fantastic job, are so willing to accommodate, and provide the best hourly rates. This kind of practice is becoming more prevalent in our industry, and I hate to say it, but is at the expense of us employing the locally available talent, which is too tardy, too expensive, and usually comes with attitude.”

The first respondent speaks about competitors outsourcing specialised functions to overseas companies, the associated financial benefits, and the competitive advantage gained by being able to concentrate more on ‘things that matter’ as a result of the time liberated by outsourcing.

The second narrative lauds the on-line skills and talent-matching applications that are driving engagement with the so-called ‘gig-economy’, where significant cost savings are made by casually employing remote workers at a much lower hourly wage than available locally.

While both respondents are talking about the phenomenon of outsourcing, the first is focussed more on issues relating to time and cost; and while the second is also concerned about the time/cost benefits, he also makes reference to employment, employability and how the very nature of it being transformed by on-line technologies, global telecommunications, and the advent of remote, ‘always available’ gig contractors.

Returning to the original question: should the property outsourcing (x2) be allocated to the conceptual indicator Competition, or the conceptual indicator Employment? Initial analysis suggested that they were equally relevant to both, and after careful consideration of the underlying empirical data, it became clear that perhaps both properties should remain equally assigned to both concepts, thereby preserving the balance in original meaning as portrayed by the source narrative. To some, seeing the same property contributing to multiple conceptual indicators may appear to be a mistake: it is not.

Indeed, where the properties belonging to two distinct concepts expressed significant overlap of meaning or multiple ambiguities, it prompted the researcher to question the uniqueness of the concept itself, and often resulted in the blending of two concepts in to one, taking on the constituent properties of each founding concept. Consequently, identical properties are seen to exist independently across multiple concepts, or become grouped together under one common conceptual banner. This is not a case of carelessness or lack of attention on the part of the analyst, as one may suspect, but reflects a careful consideration of the nuanced meaning of the property, as it relates not only to the original narrative, but also the situational context, field notes and conceptual memos; all of which add to the original expression of the concept.

While the above argument may have had little impact on the final significance of either conceptual indicators in this case, the thought processes applied when distinguishing between potentially ambiguous properties is highlighted to demonstrate similar occurrences between artefacts that may have an impact on the intended contextual meaning of a code. Where multiple properties exhibit conceptual ambiguity, their impulsive reallocation or redistribution could result in major changes to a concept’s overall significance and the theory it later informs, and so care must be taken. Three examples of how conceptual ambiguity was recognised and subsequently dealt with are outlined in the following sections.

- 187 - 4.6.3 The case of RQ3:SC1, RQ3:SC4 and RQ3:SC6

Doing the right thing (RQ3:SC1) was an unusual sub-category in that the only conceptual indicator that adequately described its dominant properties sounded uncomfortably colloquial and overly vague; in other words, it was not a good fit (Glaser 2002).

Furthermore, it was worryingly close in terms of meaning to the sub-categories Universal good (cf. RQ3:SC4) and Compliance (cf. RQ3:SC6), leading me to suspect that the coding process had failed at some point, or something else had been overlooked.

The overall vagueness and lack of comfortable ‘fit’ with respect to the other sub-categories indicated that the properties driving the category may be a sub-set of one or more of the existing categories, and therefore prompted a re-evaluation of SC1, SC4 and SC6 in the later stages of analysis.

An initial remedy was to merge the constituent properties for all three sub-categories to form one larger sub-category, driven by a more broadly-based set of conceptual indicators; but if that was to be the case, then why not collapse all sub-categories driving RQ3 in to just one labelled Principled praxis? Clearly, they all, in some way or another, were conceptually driving the core category. The line had to be drawn somewhere, and as constant comparison and the interchange of indictors progressed, this dilemma highlighted the challenges faced by the analyst during the approach to theoretical saturation: as saturation of the data was approached, the nuances, meanings and dimensional properties driving the sub-categories would begin to exhibit increasing signs of conceptual overlap, causing the final allocation of properties to their respective sub-category to be further doubted. This doubt often resulted in them being switched from one category to another, only to be doubted again, and then swapped back to their original allocation. Rather than the ‘abrupt-stop-to-analysis’ so often referred to in the grounded theory texts, perhaps this was a better indicator of an approaching theoretical saturation?

There must have been an original basis for distinguishing between the three synonymous sub-categories RQ3:SC1, SC4 and SC6. To address this doubt, a thorough re-analysis of the underlying nuances embedded within the original interview narrative was required.

Subsequent re-evaluation, however, vindicated the original choice for distinction:

nuanced meanings contained within the narrative excerpts driving Doing the right thing (SC1) revealed that respondents were referring to the need to serve the immediate needs of themselves and those around them, such as work colleagues, family and other close associates. Contrastingly, Universal good (SC4), extended the scope of the

action-out-of-duty described by SC1 to address a set of beneficiaries based externally to the respondent’s immediate sphere of influence. While both SC1 and SC4 were nuanced with the common need to do only what others would generally perceive to be good, principled action, the scope of the intent was quite distinct. The concepts involved were broadly similar, but the extent of the action was not, and this possibly gave rise to the original confusion: competing conceptual indicators were at play here. Finally, Compliance (SC6) referred uniquely to the observation of statutory demands and the legality of complying with authoritarian demands, and while it may have initially appeared to be strongly synonymous with SC1 and SC4, it was found to be quite independent in the final analysis.

4.6.4 Concerning the conceptual elaboration of RQ2:SC4

Choosing a suitable name for this sub-category was the subject of much consternation and should be highlighted as a good example of how a sub-category evolves during the various stages of analysis. Based on the concepts initially driving it, the sub-category was labelled Access to knowledge, but ‘knowledge’ would have immediately restricted the conceptual scope to data with meaningful structure, thereby excluding the less structured forms of data and information (refer to DIKW discussion: §2.8). The category was then changed to Accessibility, but on reflection, such a vague descriptor could also refer to accessibility with respect not just to information or knowledge, but to people, resources and other artefacts. As access to people and access to resources had already been addressed by Networks (RQ1:SC4) and Locus of operation (RQ1:SC5) respectively, the label Accessibility was therefore not a viable option, either. Following a careful review of the constituting properties, it was decided to name the sub-category ‘Access to information’; a label that reflected the structured, meaningful nature of the knowledge being sought (contrasted with a structure-less corpus of meaningless data), and which was consonant with, for example, Casson’s (2003: 233) conclusions relating to the role of information in stimulating entrepreneurial activity.

4.6.5 The conceptual elaboration of RQ3:SC3 and RQ3:SC5

A significant amount of conceptual overlap between RQ3:SC3 Life-work balance and RQ3:SC5 Commitment began to appear during the later stages of analysis, mostly on account of the overlapping concepts relating to the strong inter-dependencies that exist between family, colleagues, and the working environment that ultimately satisfies their various needs. The fact that the sub-category had to be changed from Family values to Commitment signalled early signs of potential ambiguity.

- 189 - The change of name was shortly followed by the temptation to merge both sub-categories, as the narratives supporting each seemed to focus on similar conceptual themes. However, a subsequent detailed analysis of the excerpts in context with the relevant native interview scripts revealed specific nuances and sufficient variety to warrant a sustained differentiation between the two. Accordingly, the two distinct sub-categories relating to Commitment and Life-work balance remained. Indeed, had the two categories been merged, much of the preceding discussion could possibly have been lost, having been absorbed in to a wider conceptual discussion, thereby resulting in the complete omission of a number of embedded concepts vital to the construction of theory in Chapter 6.

______________