Aïllaments 27.1 Descripció

• Saldana (2013, p. 96) notes that Process Coding has also been called ‘action coding’ in some literature, as the focus is on action. Process Coding makes use of gerunds in the coding process and Charmaz (2013) recommends the use of gerunds during coding to try to answer the question of what is actually happening in the data. She points out that the reality of our world is that it is constantly changing, and is not a set, static structure. The use of gerunds allows the analysis to be a more fluid, active process. Charmaz quotes Glaser (1967) as having described grounded theory as ‘the sociology of gerunds’. An example of a gerund, is used by Maree when she says “promoting your faith to others by the way you lead”. This concept of a dynamic approach to the data is reflected in

Charmaz’s recommendation of line by line coding initially which is also active and kinaesthetic. Charmaz (2013) describes this approach as a ‘heuristic device’ which may also be defined as a practical method for problem solving, often involving trial-and-error (Merriam-Webster, 2016) for learning about the world that is being researched.

Having chosen the particular approaches to coding, and having read the transcript through more than once, the researcher starts to summarise each line with a word or phrase. Beginning with ‘substantive’ coding, that is, open coding leading to the discovery of topics or categories and related concepts by direct analysis of the data, the researcher compares line by line, incident with incident and is ‘forced’ to verify categories (Holton, 2007, p. 275).

Charmaz (2014, p. 124) defines line by line coding as “giving a name to each line of the written data” and explains that this process, albeit apparently arbitrary, actually forces the

researcher to adhere to the data rather than succumbing to his or her own preconceived ideas. Further, she comments that this process also sparks new ideas from the data that can and should be explored. Charmaz also goes on to explain that it is not unusual for professional people, conducting research within their own field to be so immersed in the information and perspectives they are being given through the interview process that they unquestioningly accept the worldview and assumptions of their participants, rather than critically analysing what the data is saying (Charmaz, 2014, p. 125). Creswell (2009, p. 186) suggests that topics be given an abbreviated ‘code’ during the open coding phase and then further reading and analysis will permit the codes to be re-grouped into categories and reduced in number where possible.

Kelle (2007) commenting on Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) methodology, notes that there are two basic imperatives in relation to category building in grounded theory:

1. “Categories must not be forced on the data, they should emerge instead in the ongoing process of data analysis.

2. In developing categories, the sociologist should employ theoretical sensitivity, which means the ability to see relevant data and to reflect upon empirical data material with the help of theoretical terms” (p. 193).

The central topic of this study is leadership which is both complex and wide ranging in its application. It was therefore anticipated that a great many topics or categories would emerge from the data and that grouping and reduction would be essential in order to keep the material manageable. This did indeed occur and necessitated considerable reading and re- reading of the data and the resulting categories. The illustration of a swirling, muddy pond could be used, which, after some concentration, (in this case frequent reading and analysis), begins to settle and clear, whereupon the larger stones (the more obvious, core categories) start to emerge and become obvious to the researcher.

While the coding begins with the researcher reading the transcript carefully and alongside each line writing a label, it should be noted that this ‘label’ might be a single word, a phrase or even a clause. This label might describe what is happening, what the participant is feeling, what the participant is doing as in the following samples:

Table 3. 6

Samples of first level coding

Raw data: what the participant was actually saying.

Summary by the researcher

Fran: Interview 3

I started in year 5 and midway through year 5 we had a new teacher come in and he had a huge impact on me about becoming a teacher. The way he taught, the way he engaged.

Reflecting on year five

Feeling greatly influenced by new teacher

His way of engaging students influenced her strongly towards teaching

Darlene: Interview 1

So what I’m looking at now is survey questionnaireing (sic) our families to actually find out in this context how do they engage tightly, connect and communicate with their children.

Wanting to find out more about parents’ relationships with their children

(Because she wants to support that)

Denise: Interview 1

For some of our families, filling in documents is almost impossible and they need help with that. When they’ve been through difficult times, they KNOW they can come here and someone will hold out a hand to them.

I’ve had parents just come and drop themselves on my steps and just sit there. ‘Cause they know they can. And just hang. If they want to talk they can talk, if they don’t want to talk they don’t have to talk

Satisfaction at being able to offer practical support to families and community members

Satisfaction at knowing families feel they can come there for comfort and kindness

Being able to give emotional support to families and community members

Maree: Interview 1

The cornerstone of everything we do is based in social justice!

Social Justice

The samples displayed in Table 3.6 demonstrate how the researcher tries to capture the content AND the way the participant was feeling about what they were saying.

Sometimes the initial codes used are summaries of what the person has said, if the actual words are used as the code, which is termed: ‘in vivo code’ (Gorra, 2016). Charmaz (2006) points out that using the participant’s actual words is useful in preserving not only the words themselves, but especially the participant’s meaning and their perspective on what is

happening. A term that summarises what the participant is thinking or doing may also be used such as in the example found in Table 3.6. with the use of the word ‘satisfaction’. Here the participant (Denise) has not used the actual word ‘satisfaction’ but that is clearly what she is feeling from being able to offer the particular support she is describing. While in the fourth example, the participant’s (Maree) actual words are used in an In Vivo approach.

Although a quantitative approach is not usually associated with qualitative research another practice may be to count the actual instances that a particular word or concept that is significant to the participant, is used. Counting quickly demonstrates the importance of that word or concept to the person who is spontaneously using it during an interview (Morgan, 1993). The ultimate purpose of any of these processes or activities by the researcher is to dig deeply into the data to understand what is going on, the reasons for this and how it may all come together to increase the depth of understanding. Such is the case with Table 3.7 that records the incidence of the use of some of the words that the participants viewed as important, across the cohort of interviewees. Saldana (2013, p. 63) cautions that “word frequency in the data corpus does not necessarily suggest significance, but it is nevertheless worth exploring as a query to explore any emergent but as yet undetected patterns” (p. 63). This process also serves to identify significant aspects that one interviewee might have omitted.

Table 3. 7

Numerical recording of significant words Concepts (all from participants’ own

words) grouped with like

Fran Darlene Denise Maree

Our 11 15 25 30 We 20 46 61 40 Us 12 6 7 15 Team 19 18 10 0 Christian 31 16 54 12 Faith 4 5 3 21

Jesus, God or Christ 19 1 22 13

Ministry 0 12 21 0 Mission 0 0 6 1 Social Justice 0 0 0 9 Families 10 51 27 18 Parents 3 11 11 1 Community 2 13 4 24 Service 10 12 3 11

Value, values, valued 7 2 3 41

Respect 21 4 2 7

Think or reflect 16 16 12 24

The various colours in the first column indicate the way these words are grouped together to reflect similarities. The items that scored 15 or more were circled with red, while anything over 10 received a yellow highlight to indicate the importance placed on the concept by the participant. Numerical recording is yet another method of analysing the data to

investigate emphasis and significance of comments by the participants, thus leading to the possible emergence of theory.

Table 3.8 provides a sample of the cross comparisons between the four participants during the level one coding. However, this is only a sample and although some of the codes are not recorded for every participant in this particular sample, they appear later in the conversation or in the next interview.

Table 3. 8

Samples of cross comparisons between the four participants at level 1 coding

Denise Darlene Fran Maree

Ministering

Teaming with ministers

Sharing faith

Mission focussed

Coming from Jesus

Christian decision making

Pastoral caring

Facilitating support

Bridging the gap

Welcoming families

Accepting families

No judging

Talking about her Research project

Rolling out parenting programs

Wanting to support families more

Giving Christmas gifts to parents every year

Reflecting whether this was really meeting families’ needs

Wanting to find out how to strengthen families

Deciding to do research to get info

Survey questionnaireing (sic) all the families for that information

Feels it’s a blessing It’s developing

feeling it’s a passion in her heart

Wanting to think outside the square and use the resources

EC perspective

Sharing faith

Non-Christian protocols

Being able to have other faiths but not share

Being superficial but not personal

Storying not faith

Embedding Christian faith into whole daily program

Not just token moment

Embodiment of what / why they do

Children, relaxed with concept of God.

Main aim for the child

Reflecting on the source of Christian EC Leadership

Believing that faith produces a strong values base

Seeing a difference between leadership and management

promoting your faith

to others by the way you lead

Leading rather than managing, inspires staff to copy

Living those values in everything you do: (relationships)

Perceiving faith-based values as the source of Christian Leadership

Reflecting on the relationship between leadership and management

Seeing management as routine, but leadership as from the core of your being, that faith being.

Families returning

Families feeling safe

Being part of the mission

Offering support

Driven by Jesus’ love

Providing resources to strengthen families

Extending support to wider community

Confident as to how to do it

Wanting best way to serve busy families

Families knowing this is part of the dynamic

Dispelling fear about Christianity

Dispelling misconceptions about program & curriculum

Openness at orientation

No pretence

Children hearing about God

Acknowledging that people look to her as a role model

Explaining these are her expectations of staff

Stressing the importance of living up to those expectations

The comparisons highlighted in Table 3.8 strengthen the researcher’s ability to compare and notice the gaps in the data. For example, in the sample displayed in this table, and during these first-round interviews it can be seen that Maree in the right-hand column does not mention families, her focus is on her staff; while the other three participants have a strong focus on families and do not mention staff. This permits the researcher to listen for these topics in further interviews and even ask specific questions in relation to these topics.