The style of analysis

This chapter has already discussed the specific approaches involved in the collection of data, including semi-structured interviews and the use of questioning. The particular tools and techniques used for analyzing the data is the final revelation concerning the particular research methods adopted. In short, this research project uses codes, categories, constant comparison, intensive data interrogation, theoretical saturation and deviant case analysis to assist in the interpretation of the dataset. These tools and techniques for analysis are considered flexible and unique to a particular researcher (Charmaz, 2008). Indeed, the analysis involves the unique interpretations of the researcher (Blumer, 1969; Denzin, 1998; Schwandt, 2000; Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Charmaz, 2008; Denzin and Lincoln, 2008). As a consequence, this researcher uses particular tools and techniques that are thought to assist effectively in the interpretation of data and the generation of insights. Codes and categories potentially provide the most notable inconsistency in terms of flexibility, because they act as fixtures and signposts that importantly direct the analysis and maintain focus. Despite this, they are integral to the data analysis process. Thus, codes and categories are discussed separately within the subsequent section as a core feature of the analytical process.

Constant comparison is ―the analytic process of comparing different pieces of data for similarities and differences‖ (Corbin and Strauss, 2008: p.65). The units of analysis for constant comparison are the individuals selected randomly throughout the seven organizations studied. This includes a cross-section of employees in management roles, line managers (when applicable), the front-line employees, and any other staff who can potentially affect the socially constructed everyday working world. A total of thirty- eight transcribed semi-structured interviews within seven organizations contribute to the analysis.

The multiple case study approach assists in overcoming the problem suggested by Silverman (2000) of ‗anecdotalism‘ often associated with qualitative studies. This

potentially exists if only a few reports of telling examples of insights from within the analysis are suggested without sufficient attempts to analyze the less clear and even contradictory data. To confront this potential issue, thoughts, opinions and feelings are explored amongst a significant cross-section of the workforce. Consequently, this yields a breadth of data for comparison between managers and front-line employees alike. This complex data is closely scrutinized and analyzed to ensure the full development of an insight uncovered. In addition, the use of seven organizations clarifies and analyzes in- depth the insights developed by providing a selection of differing organizational backdrops for further constant comparisons and exploration. In other words, one organizational comparison to the next, and so on, helps to further advance and inform the interpretations generated from the dataset.

Throughout the analytical process, there is an intensive interrogation of the data to open the data up and create comparative thinking. In essence, this interrogation seeks to continuously ask questions of the data and provide alternative perspectives that advance the development of interpretations. Within individual interviews, for example, this often involved the rephrasing and rewording of subsequent questions, as well as returning and expanding on issues later within the questionnaire. Although Glaser (1992) argues this is ―cumbersome and self-conscious‖ (p.60) and pushes researchers away from the simplicity of interpreting and comparing data, this study rejects this proposition and adopts this interrogative approach that is strongly advocated by Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998, Strauss, 1987). Ultimately, the approach forces a researcher to think differently about their data and restrict their potential perceptual inhibitors.

This research project uses theoretical saturation to generate solid and relevant insights. Theoretical saturation is where no additional data are being found, instances are repeating over and over; when one category is saturated, there is no choice but to go onto new groups and categories (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). In effect, the further gathering and analysis of data adds little to the conceptualization (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). One of the approaches adopted by this study is the constant comparison of the seven organizations involved. Once an interesting insight is uncovered and validated in one organization, exploration of this generated theory is applied and explored in the other cases for further advancement. This further development of these insights within differing organizational sectors helps to suggest these findings may not be restricted to

the seven cases studied here. Nevertheless, further research would be needed on a larger and wider scale to understand to what extent the findings could be generalized.

For this research project, deviant case analysis is used in three ways. The first is to ensure the thorough understanding and exploration of data that seemingly contradicts or conflicts with emerging theories. Silverman (2005) supports this approach to provide comprehensive data treatment. The second is the selection of cases that may intentionally provide and develop deviant data. In this instance, this represents the choice of seven organizations within diverse sectors: high school education, HE education, catering, defence, transport, not-for-profit and adult themed retailing. Mason (1996) supports this ethos of gathering data within cases which may seek out negative connotations within the emerging construction of insights. The third is ensuring that the researcher is not satisfied with the explanations and insights provided. Instead, questions are designed into the interview questionnaire to explore particular responses initially given. This helps to ensure legitimacy within the data gathered and reduces spurious data (Silverman, 2005). In effect, those responses first provided by interviewees are subsequently explored through rephrasing the questions and/or seeking clarity on the expression of meaning provided.