CARACTERÍSTICAS DEL COMERCIO EN LA CIUDAD DE GUAYAQUIL

I started the process of ‘intensive analysis’ after I finished the scheduled data collection process. In this process, the researcher often attempts to produce provisional findings that s/he revises and re-arranges continuously (Merriam, 1998, 2009). Labelling chunks or segments of text according to the connections between content and the research objectives is called ‘coding’. The process of coding usually involves more than one phase during which the researcher reads and re-reads the transcripts, reflects on the data collected and takes notes about possible interpretations (Dörnyei, 2007; Merriam, 1998).

Initial coding provides the researcher with a general sense of the data and descriptive patterns in the data. At this stage, parts that are related to the research questions and objectives are grouped and labelled broadly in order to compose descriptive accounts of the data. Here, the aim is not to produce a set of categories, but to make data segments more manageable and ‘to generate a set of labels from which categories can be derived’ (Richards, 2003, p.273). Dörnyei (2007) states that this initial process should be followed by ‘a more formal and structured coding process’ (p.250). That is, after initial coding, the researcher should aim at building deeper connections between relevant data units and the study so that s/he can move towards the process of categorisation.

Category construction involves the process of bringing the units of data, which have been produced after coding, together again by grouping them under broader

labels/classes (Merriam, 1998; 2009). Richards (2003) states that ‘an adequate category’ should have some essential features such as being conceptually coherent, analytically useful, empirically relevant and practically applicable (p.276). Likewise, (Merriam, 1998) states that categories should reflect the purpose of the research and they should be mutually exclusive, conceptually congruent and clear (p.184). The number of categories was decided during the data analysis process as the study had an inductive nature. That is, it depended on the data and the purpose of the study. The only criterion was, as Merriam (1998) states, that the number of categories should be manageable for the researcher.

It should be borne in mind that categories, derived from the initial codes, are not the data themselves but concepts ‘indicated by the data’ (Merriam, 1998, p.179). That is, the researcher needs to move from surface-level description of the data to abstractions that classify and link the segments of the data. Category types and names can be derived from other sources besides the data themselves. References such as the researcher’s own notes or the literature and the theoretical context might also offer category types and names (Richards, 2003). No matter what their sources are, categories should be framed in a systematic way according to the purpose of the study and philosophical orientation of the researcher (Merriam, 1998). After categorisation, I moved to a phase in which I made inferences from the categories to develop and define broader themes.

After I transcribed and organised all of the data on my personal computer, I used NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 10, 2012) to systematically and intensively analyse the data sources. Coding was conducted within each data

collection method after which emerging codes were grouped to build potential categories and themes. That is, all data sources from the units of analysis (i.e. classrooms) were examined inductively as potential generators of new codes rather than set of codes were derived from analysis of only part of the data set and then applied to other data. Appendices 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 and 8.1 involve samples of the data analysis from the embedded units (i.e. classrooms) in this study. In addition, the following table illustrates the details of the overall process of coding and structuring categories that I followed during the data analysis.

Field journals and documents Interviews

(1) Initial coding – (during data collection) I used my initial

interpretation and comments to shape the following interviews with the participants.

(3) Focused coding – I reviewed the notes thoroughly and chronically. Possible codes were set inductively.

(2) Initial coding – I reviewed the interviews individually in a chronological order.

During the pilot study and after the first phase of the main study, I shared some of the interview transcriptions with the participants to learn more about their comments and statements. However, I could not do this in the second phase.

(4) Focused coding – I reviewed the interviews thoroughly and compared the initial codes with the codes from the field journals.

(5) Categorisation and developing themes – I grouped the similar codes. But I developed the final categories and themes after comparing the codes from the field journals and interview.

This process was repeated for each unit of analysis (i.e. classrooms). For example, after I had finished analysing and interpreting the data sources from Classroom A.1, developing themes inductively and presenting some themes as

findings, I started analysing the data sources obtained from Classroom B.1. Table 4.8. Coding the field journals and interviews

In this study, the data analysis was conducted through a contextual coding process. That is, emerging codes from each unit of analysis (i.e. classrooms) were developed and grouped around specific classroom incidents which provided contextual details related to these codes (e.g. classroom task, a dialogue between students and teachers,

a specific topic). In each classroom, the codes were developed separately for the interviews and observations, and they were grouped under the same contextual labels (see Appendices 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 and 8.1). This helped me to organise the codes in a more manageable way and interpret them within the unique contextual conditions in which they had been observed.

The observation notes were recorded, transcribed and analysed in English. Since the interviews had been conducted and transcribed in Turkish, coding was done based on the Turkish contents of the interviews. The main reasons for analysing the interviews in Turkish were (1) to review and start initial coding soon after transcriptions and (2) to pay attention participants’ utterances with their own word-choices. Moreover, as Temple and Young (2006) claims, early attempts to translate the research texts (e.g. interviews) might cause a relative lack of understanding of ‘the ties between language and identity/culture’ of the participants (p.174). Although the analysis was conducted on the original transcriptions (i.e. in Turkish), the codes were developed and labelled in English in order to create a consistency in coding. This helped me to easily compare the codes with the ones developed from the other sources.

The interview contents used in the thesis to present, discuss and elaborate these categories and inferences were translated into English. Mann (2011) states that this situation may cause ‘translation complexities’ and it should be addressed explicitly in presentation of the data. In fact, in some cases, I used member-checking as a strategy to enhance validity and shared my translations with teacher interviewees. In most cases, however, I translated the content into Turkish, and if it was necessary, I shared the original content, my translation and the tentative codes I developed from

the data with a colleague who was a proficient speaker of Turkish and English languages.

It is observed that the issue of translation has been usually neglected in social- science research (see Halai, 2007; Temple & Young, 2006). Temple and Young (2006) stress that this issue should be recognised by researchers particularly due to its epistemological, ontological and methodological implications. My role in this study as a researcher also includes translating the excerpts from Turkish into English. Temple and Young (2006) state the translator always makes his/her ‘mark’

on the research. As a result, while I aim at providing accurate and somewhat ‘literal’ translation of participants’ original utterances, those utterances in English may carry my ‘mark’ in the presentation as well. In order to make this ‘mark’ visible to the reader, I inserted some footnotes when there was a need for explanations about particular word choices and other translation issues.