Strategies for data analysis and representation

This section aims to create clarity about the path between data collection and the writing up of findings, a process described by ethnographers as bringing things together or doing “contraption” work (Neyland, 2008). In Table 2, I summarise the types of data used to answer my research questions and the links to the theoretical tools used for analysis.

Interviews were professionally transcribed (because of time constraints). They were transcribed in full and only captured spoken words and pauses.

Transcripts did not record non-word elements that may be of use in

conversation analysis (Brinkman & Kvale, 2015), such as “intonation, pitch, amplitude and pace of talk” (Hammersley, 2012, p. 440), or other aspects related to physical or emotional responses. While many aspects of an

encounter are lost during the production of a transcript (Suzuki et al., 2007), the accounts, as captured in the transcripts, were enriched by my recollection of the discussions. There is much debate about the role played by the

transcription process, whether researchers should transcribe themselves, but also what and how to transcribe. Transcription is often described as “a process

of construction”, generating texts that we should not consider as “unmediated” or “sacred and infallible” (Hammersley, 2012, p. 439 and 442). It is a process of transformation, of interpretation, a shift between modes of communication (Brinkman & Kvale, 2015).

Table 2. Linking research questions to data collection and analysis

How do postdoctoral researchers and principal investigators from scientific disciplines experience researcher development, post-Roberts

implementation?

Research questions Data source Link to

theoretical concepts

Chapter 6 & 7

RQ1- What was the institutional journey of researcher development policies and what does it tell us about the field of

postdoctoral research in a research-intensive

institution?

RQ2- How are researchers positioned in the field of postdoctoral research within a research-intensive

institution?

Ethnographic data and institutional and national secondary data

Field and capital

Chapter 8

RQ3- How do postdoctoral researchers develop a feel for the game to transit through the field of postdoctoral research?

Interviews with postdoctoral researchers

Ethnographic & secondary data

Habitus, capital and field position

Chapter 9

RQ4- How do PIs approach postdoctoral researcher development?

Interviews with Principal investigators

Ethnographic & secondary data

Habitus and position-taking

Throughout the analysis, I placed great emphasis on the listening to the audio recordings, listening while reading the transcripts, listening without the

transcripts, drawing concept maps based on my listening of the interviews, and remembering the interview context, in order to draw meanings from multiple angles. This provided a richness of information appropriate under the scope and purpose of this project. I generated cameos summarising individuals’ narratives, based on my reading of the transcripts and listening of audio recordings. Both transcripts and cameos were annotated with a view to identifying significant themes. Some interviews were also coded using the NVivo software to experiment with diverse approaches to data analysis. After careful consideration, I made the decision not to undertake NVivo coding with all the interviews, as I felt that detailed coding using NVivo was making me lose sight of the big picture of the research question by “fragmenting and

decontextualizing” the accounts (Forsey, 2012, p. 374). Overall, the thematic analysis generated around 5 different themes with a range of clusters (Table 3) across the sample of researchers and academics interviewed. In order to explore researcher development, the themes drawn from interview analysis were analysed through their contribution to the construction of the habitus, acquisition and/or ownership of different types of capital and positioning in the field.

When reporting research findings, based on an ethnographic institutional exploration and presenting accounts of individuals still present in an institution, great care needs to be taken, particularly to maintain individuals’ anonymity. Exposing institutional practices can never be unproblematic (Alvesson, 2003; Bourdieu, 1988). My preference would have been to maintain the biographical narrative integrity of participants’ accounts in a fashion similar to other scholars (Chen et al., 2015; Kelly-Blakeney 2014; McAlpine & Lucas, 2011), in order to “avoid wrenching people out of their social milieu, butchering their often existing stories into atomistic quotes and isolated variables” (Forsey, 2012, p. 365). If brave enough, I might have attempted impressionist tales of the type movingly written by Sparkes (2007). I was aware that there could be a risk in maintaining the anonymity of my participants by staying very close to individuals’ full

Table 3. Themes from analysis of interview transcripts

Themes from interview

analysis Clusters

Constructing strategies Postdocs and choice

Postdocs and change Postdocs and actions Postdocs and time-space

Social dynamics Postdocs and PIs

Postdocs and others Formative doctoral years

Transition of the self Postdocs and self

Postdocs and power Postdocs and desire

Transition towards research independence

Ways of researching

Understanding of the academic environment

Postdocs and work structures Postdocs and research ownership

Career and development Postdocs and jobs-career

Postdocs and learning- developing-training

Other authors also report the care taken, regarding the identity of institutions and individuals, when researching HEIs, the need to occasionally aggregate data, limit descriptions of institutional sites, delay reporting of results or disguise some responses to maintain anonymity, particularly when presenting

ethnographic evidence (Lucas, 2006; Ylijoki, 2013). This was a particularly salient aspect in the presentation of this study. I have worked carefully in withdrawing identifiable details (to avoid revealing information easily traceable to particular individuals) and in presenting disaggregated demographic data, while attempting to preserve the authenticity of the narratives. For this reason, and following Rapoport and Lomsky-Feder (2002)’s approach to data

presentation in a study on Russian Jews’ Ethnic Habitus, I will not assign demographic details and other recognisable information to each participant within a formal table, but will introduce my participants using pseudonyms during the course of the analysis.

5.8 Summary

In this chapter I have exposed the methodological approach developed, the strategies for data collection and analysis, and laid bare the messiness and wickedity in the research process (Ashwin & Case, 2012; Trowler, 2012b). The next four chapters present the findings, starting with chapter 6, which discusses how researcher development policies came into being in my institution and the sites of struggles they highlighted in the field of postdoctoral research.

Chapter 6

Researcher development: