CONTEXTO DEL ÚLTIMO ESTADO DE EMERGENCIA A RAÍZ DEL COVID-19 Y LOS

The interviews, documentation and field notes from observations were a rich data source for analysis within this study. The SoLPs were grouped together and reviewed as a separate body of data. Bowen (2009, p: 32) argues that document analysis involves “skimming (superficial examination), reading (thorough examination) and interpretation”. In relation to the SoLP for each borough, each one was skim read, then read in depth and based on this research a checklist for the analysis of each SoLP was developed (See Appendix 6). Using the checklist each SoLP was reviewed and themes that emerged where written into a report on SoLPs.

Bowen (2009) suggested five functions of documentary analysis and these were:

• To provide context on the environment within which the research participants operate.

• To suggest questions that need to be asked and situations that need to be observed.

• To provide supplementary research data.

• To provide a means of tracking change and development and to be analysed.

• As a way to verify findings or corroborate evidence from other sources.

Within this research, the analysis of documentation was used for providing context, to provide supplementary research data and in a small way, as a method for verification of evidence from other sources.

In analysing the interviews, steps suggested by Creswell and Creswell (2018) were followed.

They suggested that the analysis of qualitative data follows a series of steps. The first step involves organising the data into a state that means it can be analysed (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Within this research, all interviews were transcribed. The next suggested step is to spend time examining the data prior to coding, to gain an understanding of what is contained within it (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). In this study the proposal for analysis of the

119

emerging data was to use NVivo10. Training on this software was subsequently attended and after transcription, each interview was entered onto NVivo10. During the completion of fieldwork however, NVivo10 was updated and NVivo11 became the software version

available to download from Middlesex University’s website. There were a few changes within the updated version, that had to be navigated by the researcher as the training given was on an earlier software version. There was a specific requirement that all interview transcriptions had to be completed in Microsoft Word, to be entered into NVivo11 for thematic analysis.

Once data was incorporated into NVivo11, thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. Braun and Clarke (2006) suggest that thematic analysis can be used with conceptual frameworks and they argue that “through its theoretical freedom, thematic analysis provides a flexible and useful research tool, which can potentially provide a rich and detailed, yet complex account of data” Braun and Clarke (2006, p4). In this study, parent nodes were created on NVivo11 based on common themes identified within the data. Braun and Clarke (2006) suggest that within thematic analysis there are two approaches, which they termed as inductive and theoretical. Within this study the thematic analysis approach used was data driven and therefore inductive (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Braun and Clarke (2006, p83) argued that inductive analysis is “a process of coding data without trying to fit it into a pre-existing coding frame, or the researcher’s analytical preconceptions”. In this research,

although the theoretical concepts and frameworks influenced the nodes created on NVivo11, the themes were obtained from the data and not purely theoretically driven. Each parent node was given a title. These were knowledge and knowledge transfer, evidence,

professional identity and partnership working. Other themes were identified from the data and added to the four parent nodes as child nodes, due to their relationship with the main parent nodes. Braun and Clarke (2006, p86) refer to this process as “searching across a data set – be that a number of interview or focus groups, or a range of texts – to find repeated patterns of meaning”. After this stage of analysis however, NVivo11 was no longer used (see reflective account later in this Chapter).

Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014) proposed a system for qualitative data analysis that consisted of three parts, named as data condensation, data display and drawing/verifying conclusions. The first stage of data condensation involved making decisions over which data to include and which to discard, which is like Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) step of

120

organising and preparing the data. Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014) suggested that data condensation was a continuous process which only finishes with the publication of the research. During the data analysis for this thesis, decisions over data inclusion were complex and this process continued with each new draft of the thesis. The second stage suggested was data display, defined as “an organized, compressed assembly of information that allows conclusion drawing and action” (Miles, Huberman and Saldana, 2014, pp12-13). As previously mentioned within this Chapter, although initially NVivo11 was planned as the method for displaying the data obtained, this was not the only source of data display. All data was stored on NVivo11 with nodes created but some data from the interviews was displayed in a written format on paper. In addition, for data obtained from documents and meeting observations, paper again was the main source of data display.

The final stage of conclusion drawing, and verifying was also an ongoing process within this research. Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014, p13) proposed that “from the start of data collection, the qualitative analyst interprets what things mean by noting patterns,

explanations, causal flows and propositions. The competent researcher holds these

conclusions lightly, maintaining openness and scepticism, but the conclusions are still there”.

These authors argue that the final conclusions may not appear until after data collection was completed, but these have often been prefigured from the beginning (Miles, Huberman and Saldana, 2014). Within this research there was an ongoing cycle of analysis and at each stage, the emergent data was examined, and alterations made to the study findings. Within

Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) work, two final steps were suggested, which were named as

‘generate a description and themes’, followed finally by represent the description and themes. These final two steps were similar to the final stage of conclusion drawing and verifying suggested by Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014). For a full outline of results from this study, see the later Chapters on Findings, which is followed by Discussion and Conclusion Chapters.

Once main themes were available from the interview data, the information from observations was scrutinised and arranged under similar themes. The interviews and

fieldnotes from observations were viewed as complementary methods and were analysed in parallel (convergently) to allow for a modest degree of triangulation and for more detailed conclusions than could be reached using only participants’ self-reported accounts. In practical

121

terms, this meant that the data obtained from the interviews could be reviewed with the data from the observation to present a more thorough picture of the actual procedures involved in licensing decisions, as well as of Public Health professionals attempts to engage.

A convergent approach to collating the findings was chosen because it met the exploratory and hypothesis generating nature of the research. The purpose was to use data from different sources to gain insights into the factors influencing the role of Public Health in licensing decisions and to generate common themes emerging from the research. The subjective accounts provided by interview participants could, to a modest extent, be viewed against the more objective observation of events and actions at the licensing committees.

The data obtained from interviews and field notes was analysed at a similar time and during this timescale, the emerging data was reviewed, and changes were made to the data

collection based on this (Fetters et al, 2013). For example, in an interview it was mentioned that the licensing officers are not present when the committee decide about an application so at the field notes stage of observations the researcher made sure to observe the

procedures relating to decisions.

As can be viewed in the chapter on Findings, the emerging themes from interviews and field notes of meeting observations were weaved together to present an overview of the

involvement of Public Health within licensing. Fetters et al (2013) refer to this process as

“integration through narrative” (2013, p: 2142) where a weaving approach involves writing [both qualitative and quantitative] findings together on a theme by theme or concept by concept basis. In this thesis, two sets of qualitative data were weaved together to provide a narrative account of the experiences of professionals engaging within licensing partnerships.

This approach to the findings raised the question over whether these two data sources would produce similar findings. Fetters et al (2013) argued that during the application of this

process there are three outcomes. The first was named as confirmation, which occurs when the data from one source confirms the findings from the other. The second outcome was named as expansion, which was defined as “expansion occurs when the findings from the two sources of data diverge and expand insights of the phenomenon of interest by addressing different aspects of a single phenomenon or by describing complementary aspects of a central phenomenon of interest” (Fetters et al, 2013, p:2143-2144). The third

122

outcome relates to inconsistencies in the findings between the different data sources (Fetters et al, 2013). In relation to this research, the findings provided a small element of confirmation, with a higher level of expansion. To have completed a separate analysis on interviews and field notes from observations, would not have afforded this level of expansion and confirmation.

4.7 Ethical approval and ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this research was applied for during Spring of 2015 from Middlesex University Health and Education Ethics Sub Committee. Approval was subsequently granted (See Appendix 6). Data sources, such as national statistics and the documentation analysed for this study, were publicly available data. One exception to this was Public Health England’s (PHE’s) licensing survey reports. Permission to access these was obtained from PHE, but as the reports were not published in the public domain, a request was made of the researcher that they did not widely disseminate this documentation.

Whilst the design of this research presented no major ethical considerations, as there was no potential for any participants to be harmed during the research for example, issues over confidentiality proved important. All participants were informed that their participation in the research was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time and without a requirement to provide a reason for withdrawing. During the interview stage, a few participants expressed concern over the maintenance of confidentiality as they wished their identities to remain anonymous. This has been respected and participant characteristics have been described only as complies with preserving anonymity.

To gain increased understanding of the involvement of Public Health in licensing decisions, the researcher wanted to observe relevant meetings within one borough and produce field notes. Permission to complete qualitative research was sought and granted by the Director of Public Health within Area A. Permission to observe these meetings was also confirmed by a council officer. These were all meetings open to the public to attend. As the Licensing Sub-Committee meetings were public meetings, they could be observed and at no point did anyone express concern in relation to confidentiality in this forum. No minutes from these

123

meetings were used within this thesis, the data used purely relates to the researcher’s field notes taken during the meetings.

At the start of the meeting the chairperson informed those present that there was a researcher present. Despite being told about my presence, the individuals being observed appeared oblivious to the presence of a researcher. The advantages of observations, proposed within the available literature, concerned having a shared experience with the research participants, being able to record information as it occurred and make notes of any unusual occurrences (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).

All interviews with individual participants were audio recorded using an electronic recording device and transferred to the researcher’s password protected personal computer. These files were transcribed and placed on Nvivo11 (also password protected). Every participant was offered the opportunity to view a copy of their transcript, but no one accepted this. To ensure anonymity for participants all personalised data was removed from interview transcripts. Each respondent and their geographical location in London have been anonymised by a system of letters and numbers, for example Public Health respondent 1 from area A. Only the researcher and their supervisors are aware of these codes. After

completion of this research all audio files of interviews and documentation such as SoLPs, will be destroyed as per data protection legislation in the UK.