Working with the Data

In hermeneutic research, the process of analysis is synonymous with interpretation (Moules, Field, McCaffrey, & Laing, 2015). This process is messy, undefined, iterative and emergent. It involves multifaceted engagement with the transcripts, the literature and current research on the topic and researcher

interpretations (Moules, Field, McCaffrey, & Laing, 2015). Arguably, the process of analysis in hermeneutic research is for the most part undefined (Moules, Field,

McCaffrey, & Laing, 2015; Paterson & Higgs, 2005). In response to this, I drew upon a number of conceptual tools to help in the identification of themes in the data.

In the first instance, I undertook process coding using a two-cycle coding model to identify key themes from the transcripts. Initial codes identified from the transcripts are shown in Appendix G. Dialogue analysis was used to analyse the coded text from transcripts following Marková, Linell and Grossen’s (2007) approach. The transcripts were then re-read to consider the complexities of group dynamics present within the focus groups specifically.

The transcript was read in consideration of the way talk occurred, including communication activity types enacted and how it was that they shaped the

conversations. For example, participants related to others in the group differently during different conversations. While a participant may take on the role as speaker or listener, participants also took on other discursive roles such as the ratifying listener or as an instigator at different points in the discussion (Goffman, 1981, cited in Marková et al., 2007, p. 59). Considering the way conversations unfolded drew

attention to the dynamics of the groups. For example, Roger from the Higher Income Cohort, took on his occupational role to explain his understanding of sustainability in reference to how waste was managed at his place of employment. Participants drew on their multiple identities throughout the focus group to give meaning to different topics or questions.

I considered the heterogeneity of the participants, as the voice of an individual was at times negotiated and intersected by the voices of others in the group

(Longhurst, 2010; Marková et al., 2007). In a similar way, the individual voice was at times influenced by voices external to the setting (Bourdieu & Accardo, 1999;

Marková et al., 2007). For example, when Patricia shared her position on refugees in Australia, she drew on discourse circulating in popular national media at the time of the interviews. Reading the transcript with this in mind, informed my interpretations and understanding of how conversations developed and unfolded in particular ways. During analysis, I observed the way ideas were circulated and formed in focus group discussions. I observed that the group dynamic was not simply an arena where participants displayed pre-formed ideas. Rather, the focus groups were a platform open to potential confrontation and negotiation (Longhurst, 2010; Vicsek, 2007). Participants constructed new forms of reasoning, both for themselves and for others in the group. For example, Heidi’s understandings were influenced during the focus group when Margaret presented her thoughts about global warming. Margaret had said:

I don’t think we should know about it. Because I think companies are putting it on us, everyday citizens…like all these products have been handed to us, we

use them and now we’re bad because we’ve been doing what people have been telling us to do over the years.

During the semi-structured interview with Heidi, I asked her what she thought about Margaret’s comment. Below is a short extract from the transcript to illustrate how new ways of thinking had emerged for Heidi, based on her interactions with Margaret.

Heidi: I thought that was pretty good what she had to say actually… Interviewer: Did you think that before?

Heidi: Never really thought about it actually, I’ve never really thought about, ‘hey global warming!’ never really crossed my mind. Then she spoke about it. I thought, you know what, that’s actually a really good point and it did make sense.

Heidi’s example shows how viewpoints expressed by others in the focus group can influence other conversational contexts, such as the understandings that were later shared in semi-structured interviews.

In addition to finding moments of knowledge construction in the transcripts, I also found instances in which knowledge was taken as shared by the groups. This relates theoretically to ideas of a shared habitus and also to doxic understandings (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990b). I considered what knowledge was shared by the group and what knowledge was perhaps unsettled during conversations. I reflected on who spoke and into what conversations during interviews, which later became relevant to unpacking how questions of sustainability were negotiated across social contexts. Unpacking the shared knowledge of the group was documented both during analysis

of transcripts as well as in researcher notes and reflections, such as the trials and tribulations of mothering. In the Mother’s Group, there was a shared knowledge about the daily routines required to look after a toddler.

Coding and theme identification from within transcripts were continuously discussed with the supervisory team. However, reiterating the point from Moules, Field, McCaffrey, and Laing, “data analysis in hermeneutic research differs from other research approaches because it is divergent rather than convergent: it involves carefully opening up associations that strengthen understanding of the topic rather than focusing in on a single governing theme” (2015, p. 117). Therefore, I used coding as a starting point of analysis to familiarise myself with what was going on in the transcripts and as a way to think about how sustainability presented in participants lives. I found that after coding, I would be curious about emerging insights in the data and I would write into my curiosity as a way of expanding and interpreting the data I was working with (Tracy, 2012). It was during processes of writing that

interpretations and stories from the interview materials truly began to emerge.