In this chapter we concern analysis of the qualitative data that has been conducted during the semi- structured interviews. Miles (1979) illustrates there are a number of reasons that qualitative data are attractive: they are rich, full, earthy, holistic, real; the data collection requires minimal front-end instrumentation; they lend themselves to the production of serendipitous findings (being lucky to find things you were not looking for) and adumbration (an imperfect representation) of unforeseen theoretical leaps; and it can be useful played off against quantitative information from the same organisational setting to produce more powerful analyses than either sort of information could have produced alone (p. 590). However, making use of qualitative data has its weaknesses and problems as well. Important to acknowledge are the risk of overload, the energy required to make the data comparable, and the eventual data analysis (Miles, 1979). Emphasis should therefore be placed on an accurate reduction of the data. One method to reduce this data is within-case analysis. Eisenhardt (1989) clarifies that within-case analysis involves detailed case study write-ups for each case. In order to get an overview of all the data there are multiple methods to use: i.e. teaching cases, narrative descriptions, tabular displays and graphs. In fact the number of approaches is as much as the number of researchers (Eisenhardt, 1989). To enhance the data analysis Saunders et al (2007) suggest having a look at the research approach. This is either inductive, this involves building up a theory that is adequately grounded in your data, or deductive, this involves the use of existing theory to shape the approach to the qualitative research process and the aspects of data analysis.
In this research we use a deductive approach. Existing literature and theory (Paragraph 3.4.2) are used as a basis to formulate research questions. One of the benefits of this kind of research is that we are able to define categories based on interview questions. This implies that there already is an initial set of categories that is derived from the theoretical and conceptual framework, which is linked to the research questions and objectives (Miles & Huberman, 1994 in Saunders et al, 2007). Subsequently, this set is used to organise the data on the basis of the subjects within the interview: competence development, presence of preconditions for competence development, and core individual competences.
5.1
Organising data for the formality and transferability of learning
activities
The first part of the interview is oriented at the formality and transferability of the current learning activities within the organisation. Important to acknowledge is that a distinction is made between the activities to develop functional competences, and the activities to develop generic competences. The conceptual framework illustrates that the degree of formality, as well as the transferability of a learning activity have to be taken into account. Eventually these insights are used to determine the kind of learning activity that is used. An overview of the answers regarding the development of task-
oriented competences and people-oriented competences is provided in Appendix 6 Managers’
opinion about competence development and Appendix 7 Employees’ opinion about competence development. These data serve as a basis for the distinction between the development of functional competences and the development of generic competences (Appendices 8, 9, 10, 11). However, these are raw data and it is therefore difficult to compare the answers of multiple respondents. To enhance a comparison within and between the groups of respondents it is necessary to reduce the data. Miles & Huberman (1984) mention that data reduction is not necessarily quantification, it is also transformation. Moreover, data reduction is an important part of the analysis because it
sharpens, shorts, focuses and organises the data in a way that final conclusions are drawn and verified. This research uses the variables in Table 7 (Paragraph 4.3) as a basis for the categorisation. These variables offer a range of items to determine the formality or transferability of a learning activity. The respondents’ answers are converted into these items, which are subsequently used to provide a case-level summary of the interviews; divided by the competence’s nature. An overview of
the formality and the transferability for the learning activities to develop functional competences is
provided in Appendix 8 Managers’ experiences with regard to the formality and abstraction of learning activities to develop functional competences and Appendix 9 Employees’ experiences with regard to the formality and abstraction of learning activities to develop functional competences. An overview of the formality and the transferability for the learning activities to develop generic
competences is provided in Appendix 10 Managers’ experiences with regard to the formality and abstraction of learning activities to develop generic competences and Appendix 11 Employees’ experiences with regard to the formality and abstraction of learning activities to develop generic competences.
5.2
Organising data for the preconditions of competence development
The second part of the interview is oriented at the presence of preconditions for competence development within the organisation. On the basis of the conceptual framework it is clarified that a distinction is made between the individual factors and the organisational factors. Eventually, the following five preconditions are needed to ensure the success of a learning activity:
(1) Motivation to learn;
(2) Ability to learn;
(3) Supervisor support;
(4) Learning climate;
(5) Networks.
Motivation to learn and ability to learn are individual factors. Supervisor support, learning climate and networks are organisational factors. An overview of the answers regarding the presence of the
preconditions is provided in Appendix 12 Managers’ view on preconditions within their department
and Appendix 13 Employees’ experience and view on preconditions for development. However, these
are raw data, which makes it hard to compare the answers within and between respondent groups. It is therefore necessary to reduce the data. This research uses the aspects, dimensions and forms in Table 7 (Paragraph 4.3) as a basis to categorise the answers. Subsequently, these categories are used to provide a case-level summary of the presence of individual and organisational factors in Appendix 14 Presence of the preconditions for competence development according to the managers and
Appendix 15 Presence of the preconditions for competence development according to the employees.
Eventually, the interview results are discussed in Chapter 6.