Comparación entre variantes del Almacenamiento Distribuido de Datos

All of the interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and the transcripts of the joint and focus group interviews analysed so that the individual accounts could be identified (see appendix I). All names were replaced with pseudonyms.

The method of data analysis for this stage of the study was considered at great length. At the end of data collection, there were 33 transcripts from the interviews and three transcripts from the focus groups. It was therefore important to do justice to the accounts of the people with dementia, or memory problems and carers who had been interviewed. The aim was to carry out a

“thick” interpretation of participants’ accounts so that both the unique and the shared perspectives were communicated, an aim which Osborn and Smith (2008) consider of particular relevance where the topic under scrutiny is under-researched, multifaceted and contextual.

As a relatively new research method IPA has developed since its inception, and since these data were collected. The use of fewer cases is now recommended to allow for a deeper analysis of the data. However Smith et al (2009) suggest that a study with larger numbers of cases might need to use a pragmatic

approach to data analysis, as they state that the method of data analysis is not prescriptive. Ultimately the data were analysed in 3 different phases with early analysis occurring in 2006/7 and the final analysis taking place in 2009/10.

At the time of the initial phase of analysis, preliminary findings were presented at the IPA annual conference (Surrey, 2006) and the audience asked for their opinion of how the transcripts from the people with dementia, carers and joint interviews should be analysed (the focus group interviews had not been carried out at this stage). Interestingly there were two different suggestions: one suggestion was to analyse the data as three different data sets and the other suggestion was to analyse the data from all the interviews as one data set (Virginia Eatough, Michael Larkin, Jonathan Smith, personal communication, IPA conference, September 2006).

Initially the data were analysed as three different data sets. The analysis started with the transcripts from the people with dementia and the first choice of analysis was to develop higher level (or major) themes for each of the first three transcripts from this data set using the process described in box 5.2, to inform the analysis of subsequent transcripts. However, it was felt that this did not enable a sufficient bracketing of previous cases when analysing the subsequent ones as recommended (Smith et al 2009).

The decision was then made to re-analyse the data by attending to each transcript and setting it aside before moving on to the next transcript and analysing this independently of the previous one. In an attempt to bracket off the previous case before moving on to the next one a reflexive diary was kept, with thoughts about the analysis I had carried out recorded and reflected upon, as discussed by Finlay (2003). My physiotherapy colleague was not involved in the data analysis.

Box 5.2 Suggested steps for analysis of the case in IPA

At this early stage of data analysis, more descriptive rather than interpretative themes were generated and provided the content for the focus groups carried out in the secondary study in this research (Please see section 5.5)

The analysis was carried out with all three data sets and an attempt was made to combine the higher level themes from all three data sets to provide one single set of higher level themes. At this point it was perceived that the individual accounts and experiences emerged from the data, whilst the dyadic relationship between the people with dementia and the carers did not. The decision was made to analyse the data again, this time treating all the transcripts from each dyad as one data item. However, in this instance the different accounts within the analysis were made apparent by colour coding the transcripts (blue for people with dementia and red for carers). This meant that where there were co-constructed accounts, convergence and divergence within the data, these could more easily be identified.

The method of analysis finally decided upon in 2009-10 was that advocated by Smith et al (2009) and described by Alexander and Clare (2004), who suggested that emergent themes could be identified from each transcript so that patterns and connections could be looked for at data set level. However, it was important to ensure that the analysis of the group was still illustrated by

1. Listen to the interview

2. Read and re-read to become familiar with the transcript 3. Identify meaningful elements, including paraphrasing of

text, own thoughts, use of language etc.

4. Identify emerging patterns or themes 5. Form a preliminary list of themes

6. Cluster similar themes but keep close to transcript with identifiable quotations

7. Develop higher level/major themes from clusters

(Smith and Osborn 2008)

idiographic quotations so that the individuals within the study were adequately portrayed. Smith et al (2009) also suggest that measuring recurrence of themes across cases is important in establishing higher level themes. Recurrence in this instance, means that the themes occur in a third, half, or all interviews.

Therefore, recurrence of higher level and subthemes were recorded in tables (see findings chapter). When determining the higher level themes, Smith et al’s (2009) recommendation for the use of broad higher level themes was followed as this allowed for exploration of convergence, divergence, commonality and contradiction between cases.

5.4.9.1 Analysing follow-up interviews

Other decisions about handling the follow-up interview data had to be made, as there was no precedent within the IPA literature at the time. Only three dyads agreed to be interviewed again. One dyad was interviewed three times before moving out of the area, and the remaining two dyads could only be interviewed on two occasions because of participants’ ill health. It was then decided to follow the advice of Flowers (2008) who suggested that in these instances follow-up interviews are best combined with the previous interview transcripts into one data item to keep some consistency within the project. Extracts from follow-up interviews within the findings were identified, again as suggested by Flowers (2008).

5.4.9.2 Analysing focus group data

As already stated, there has been some contention within the IPA literature that the subjective experience of participants cannot be fully explored using focus groups. However, on analysis of the data, (using a similar method to the interview data), similarly to de Visser and Smith (2007), the themes that emerged from the focus group data were similar to those arising from the interview data. Indeed, where some novel themes emerged from the focus group data the interview data were returned to, in the iterative way expected within IPA (Smith et al 2009) and these themes were found to be present in some of these transcripts. Therefore, like de Visser and Smith (2007) and

Flowers et al (2003) the focus group data were integrated with the interview data, with each focus group transcript being treated as one data item. Once again, where focus group participant accounts have been used to support/illustrate findings, these have been indicated.