Because data analysis is such an important part of the research it is essential that there is clarity around the processes and practices involved. In qualitative data analysis there is no single right way to proceed due to qualitative approaches being incredibly diverse, complex and nuanced (Holloway and Todres, 2003). However, the analytical framework chosen is usually
influenced by the philosophical tradition the researcher is working within, where the ‘research epistemology guides what you can say about your data, and informs how you theorise meaning’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p.14). Along with this the purpose of qualitative data analysis is to uncover ‘emerging themes, patterns, concepts, insights and understandings’ (Patton, 2002, p.47). With this in mind, grounded theory provides a flexible and useful analytical tool to provide a rich and detailed, yet complex account of the data. Furthermore, this method is attuned to the underlying constructivist approach of the research (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Charmaz, 2000). According to Bryman (2008, p.541) grounded theory is by far the ‘most widely used framework’ to analyse qualitative data. Based on the work Glaser and Strauss (1967) it is an analytical strategy that uses ‘a set of techniques which emphasise the creation of theoretical statements from inspection of the data’ (Seale, 2012, p.393). Theoretical sampling informed the data collection in both phases of the research. Here, data collection and analysis took place in an alternating sequence but these stages were not linear (Christensen, Johnson and Turner, 2011). They are best described as being part of an iterative cycle, which consisted of collecting data and constantly comparing between results and new findings in order to guide further data collection saturation was achieved70 (Bryman, 2008). For example, as the researcher began to collect and order data new observations and thoughts became apparent prompting the direction of further research and allowing for the refinement of ideas (Charmaz, 2000). In this way conclusions emerged from a repetitive process of reading the data in a manner that was reflexive, progressive and iterative (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Bryman 2008).
Data management throughout the study was processed manually. This was based on my choice not to use computer software designs available such as Nvivo. The main reason being this type of software seemed to offer no real advantages to manual techniques. For example, using software meant I was still responsible for deciding upon the analytical codes to be used and the
70 Saturation refer to the point at which further data collection ceases to generate any new insights or concepts, and simply repeats what is already known (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
analytical process was still down to me (Silverman, 2013). After each observation, interview and document reading a contact summary account was written as advocated by Miles and Huberman (1994, pp.51-54). This not only described what had taken place, it helped clarify important issues and support preparation for future work in the field.
An important part of grounded theory lies in coding the data. Coding is the first stage of data analysis helping the researcher to move away from particular statements to more conceptual interpretations of the data (Seale, 2012). Charmaz (1983, p.186) demonstrates how codes are a ‘shorthand device to label, separate, compile and organise data’. Here the data are considered as ‘potential indicators of concepts which are constantly being compared to see which concept they best fit with’ (Bryman, 2008, p.542). Charmaz (2006) distinguish between two main forms of coding practice - initial coding and selective or focused coding. Initial coding tends to be a meticulous, line by line, exploration of the data; whereas focused coding ‘entails emphasising the most common codes and those that are seen as the most revealing about the data’ (Bryman, 2008, p.543). During focused coding, new codes can be formulated from combining together initial codes. According to Charmaz (2006) the data can then be re-examined and re evaluated in light of the new selective codes. What is important to bear in mind is the way grounded theory involves a progression from producing initial codes that stay close to the data ‘to more selective and abstract ways of conceptualising the phenomenon of interest’ (Bryman, 2008, p.543). It is through the constant comparison of indicators and concepts that allows the generation of categories, which are deemed saturated when no more properties can be included (Seale, 2012, p.397).
Throughout the two phases of the study data analysis and data gathering occurred at the same time in an iterative process. Not only did this assist with the actual fieldwork, it avoided trying to do coding all in one go which can often cause ‘the researcher to get sloppy, resentful, tired and partial’ (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p.65). The analysis began with the initial collection of observation data and the first few interviews in both phases. These were
subjected to open coding which was very descriptive in nature and produced an abundance of concepts71. Subsequent analysis concentrated on producing more focused codes which used the initial codes as a foundation. New categories were added when the data revealed a repeated idea that the existing themes did not reflect. The process of coding and developing categories was supported by written memos created throughout the research period. From this a careful evaluation between respondents’ statements and between codes and categories was undertaken. The main aim of this was to bring together, in a coherent fashion, the coded data and search for connections between the categories that had emerged (Charmaz, 2006).
In terms of theory, a grounded theory is explicitly related to the data from which it has been generated. In other words, it has been grounded in the data using the above techniques (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory can be used to build both substantive and formal theory. Substantive theory constructs generalisations on observation of a particular area providing a theoretical explanation that can be used to clarify issues in that place (Bryman, 2008). Formal theory, on the other hand, is more abstract and formulated from the collection and analysis of data in other research settings (Bryman, 2008). The focus of a formal theory is to produce a more general theory that can be applied to wider range of disciplinary concerns and problems (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Substantive theory can be used to help develop formal theory (Charmaz, 2006). As Glaser and Strauss (1965, p.276) point out ‘if one wishes to develop a systematic formal (or general) theory of awareness contexts, [the researcher] must analyse data from many substantive areas’.
In this study a substantive theory was developed that uses the interpretation of the data to focus on a particular area - the relationship between ordinary people and their access to and use of ICT and the Internet. It would also be true to say that most grounded theories are substantive in nature as they tend to focus on particular problems in a specific area (Charmaz, 2006). If the
71 It should be noted that although several codes were predetermined based on the broad research questions, the remainder emerged from the data.
research had perhaps utilised a different methodology there may have been the possibility to move from the substantive to the formal that would be generalisable across a broader spectrum.
There are limitations associated with grounded theory, for example the process is viewed as time consuming, too objective or lacking in methodological strength72 (Bryman, 2008). In response to these claims, this study made sure there was time to undertake the cyclical process associated with qualitative research. It also followed the methodological guidance of Charmaz (2006). For example, it made use of theoretical literature to inform the study rather than leaving this until data had been collected and analysed something associated with the earlier work of Glaser and Strauss (1967). It also believes that ‘concepts, categories and theoretical level of analysis emerge from the researcher’s interaction with the field and questions about the data’ (Charmaz, 2000, p.522). In other words, Charmaz (2006, p.10) does not support the view that theories are discovered, but are in fact part of a process of construction formed ‘through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and research practices’. This recognises that reality is ‘socially constructed as people’s experiences occur within social, cultural, historical or personal contexts’ (Hennink, Hutter and Bailey, 2011, p.15).
5.6 Conclusion
This chapter has documented the underlying philosophical and methodological choices taken to inform the research design. It has also made evident the methods used, the data analysis technique and data management procedure, along with sampling and ethical considerations. The structure of the methodology chapter outlined the research process fully and provided an explanation of the theoretical position of the researcher and his commitment to integrity. Chapter’s 6 - 8 focus explicitly on the analysis of the data produced
72 Braun and Clarke (2006) produce a strong argument for the use of ‘thematic analysis’ which lacks academic credibility but shares a great deal with grounded theory and is often passed off as grounded theory.
in the first phase of the research and have been organised thematically around three key areas. Chapter 6 discusses whether or not the CTCs at Grimethorpe are helping to increase the social capital within Grimethorpe. Chapter 7 focuses on whether or not the CTCs are helping to increase the ICT skill levels in the area. Chapter 8 forms a discussion with local residents which identifies potential barriers to motivating digitally excluded people from accessing ICT and the Internet.