A multi-stage analytic procedure was adopted for the study. The first stage involved a basic content analysis. The objective of content analysis was to systematically identify the properties and the general structures of the data included in the analysis. Analytical categories were generated through a compare and contrast approach based on Glazer and Strauss (1967) constant comparison method and used as a first stage in the frame analysis method proposed by Verloo (2007). This process began by reading the data and looking for similarities and differences. The data was then segmented and each segment was labelled according to what was similar. Analytical categories were specified for each data segment according to the conditions that gave rise to them, the context in which they occurred, the action strategy by which it was carried out, and the consequences of these action strategies (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The analytical categories generated for the academic publications were: (1) Timeframe and the social, political and economic context of publications; (2) Authors; (3) Funding and methodological approach (4) Evaluation of policies or programs.
The analytical categories generated for the policy documents were: (1) the title of the publication, (2) the size of the document, (3) the general justifications of why the Government adopted the strategy, (4) the general information about Roma people included (i.e. the types of general problems identified), (5) the key challenges, (6) presentation of the results of the former
100
Strategy, (7) guiding principles, (8) the Strategy’s objective, (9) the target group, (10) duration of the Strategy’s action plans, (11) the category and number of action plans, (12) financial support for the measures proposed, (13) success indicators, (14) provisions for supervision and evaluation of the Strategy, (15) the type and number of measures’ plan, (16) evaluation checklist for supervisors, (17) the signatory parties.
The analytical categories generated for the conversations were: (1) talk about disparities between Roma and non-Roma people; (2) mapping of frames found in academic publications in conversational contexts; (3) mapping of frames found in policy documents in conversational contexts; (4) additional frames found only in conversational settings.
Although content analysis offered a broad view of the general patterns of the academic publications, policy documents and conversations, this thesis aimed to capture the complexity of situated discursive and textual practices concerning debates about ethnic disparities. Consequently, the second analytical stage involved a detailed study of the frames included in the academic publications, policy documents9 and conversations10. Coding of frames was based on techniques of frame analysis as outlined by Verloo (2007). First, frames were inductively identified in relation to a specific issue. For example, in academic publications the broader problem of disparity was discussed through a celebration of diversity approach or a demand for equality approach. The two approaches, involving two separate issues (diversity and equality) gave rise to two different frames. Secondly, a coding scheme was created, based on each frame, and the connection between frames. Lastly, a list of prototypes of various phrases and ideas was made, to allow for the identification of frames. For example, mentions or suggestions that equality can be achieved by achieving sameness between different ethnic groups denoted equality as sameness frame; achieving equality by proposing special or positive measures for Roma people, denoted recognizing cultural differences frame, and so on.
101
In line with Verloo’s (2007) methodology for frame analysis, the major frames were distinguished from the minor frames based on (a) frequency: the number of occurrences in the data; and (b) comprehensiveness: the extent to which a frame included the aspects of voice, problem, causality and solutions (see table 3.1) – a frame that included at least three was considered a comprehensive frame.
Through-out the stages of analysis, the data was analysed on the basis of a set of sensitizing questions, adapted from Verloo’s (2007) critical frame analysis study of gender policies in Europe (see Table 3.1). The sensitizing questions helped establish the different criteria of a frame found in texts or conversations, such as the definition of a problem, causality, voice and solutions.
Table 3.2. Sensitizing questions
General information about the text/conversation
• Title of text / Group number • Date of publication/conversations
• Date of research – if applicable (academic texts only) • Who were the participants? (conversations only)
• Country or place that was presented as the analytical and/or geographical context of the text (academic texts only)
• What was the event or reason for the conversation? (conversations only)
• Type of document (academic texts only)
• Was the ethnicity of the authors declared? (academic texts only)
• Who were the signatory parties? (policy texts only)
102 conversation?
• Who was the intended audience of the text?
Information about voices • What was the professional title and academic/professional affiliation of the author(s)? (academic texts only)
• Which political or civic organizations were represented by the signatory parties? (policy texts only)
• What were the membership categories adopted by the participants? (conversations only)
• What references were made in the data about other people, studies or documents?
Information about the problem(s)
• What was seen as the problem? • Why was it seen as a problem?
• How was the problem portrayed in the data?
Information about causality
• What/who was seen as a cause of the problem?
• What/who was seen to be responsible for the problem? • Who had the problem; who was the problem group? • Who was the norm group?
• Who was seen responsible for solving the problem? • What/who was justified as not being a problem? • What were the normative considerations?
Information about solutions
• What can/should be done? • What were the priorities? • What were the resources? • Who had the resources?
103
• Who was the target group?
Information about frames
• What were the dominant discourse frames?
• What frames that were used in academic or policy documents were also used or mentioned in conversations?
• Were there novel frames included in conversations? (conversations only)
• What were the divergences, contradictions and inconsistences found between and within frames?
• What were the normative considerations? • What were the contradictions and the frictions?
Voice was defined as a descriptive or distinctive name, title or designation belonging to a person, study or a political document used to confer preference or rejection of an argumentative position vis-à-vis the problems and the possible solutions concerning ethnic disparities.
Problem was defined as a situation regarded by authors, policymakers or conversationalists as troublesome or harmful and requiring a solution. Problem included (a) what was seen as a problem, (b) who was seen as a problem and (c) why and how it was portrayed as a problem, (d) who portrayed it as a problem (voices).
Causality related to who or what was seen to (a) have made the problem, (b) have the problem, (c) be responsible for sustaining the problem, (d) solve the problem, (e) not be a problem, and (f) be the norm group.
Solutions referred to the courses of action about (a) what can or should be done, (b) the priorities, (c) resources, (d) target group and (e) voices proposing the solutions.
104
Coding techniques used in the frame analysis methodology proposed by Verloo (2007) relies on Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1997) for the identification of patterns in the data. Publications were initially openly coded, with coding labels taken directly from the language of the texts. During the open coding stage, the academic publications, policy documents and conversational transcripts were analytically broken down into separate blocks, which ranged from a few lines of text to a few pages, and coded colloquially with in-vivo codes. A succession of codes was developed and these codes were used as indicators that related directly to the data. These codes were treated as components of theories formulated by the producers of the texts and conversations. In-vivo codes had a provisional character, and in the course of analysis became increasingly numerous, differentiated and abstract. Theoretical codes, in the sense of labelling concepts adopted from scientific theories later replaced some of the provisional in-vivo codes, as the researcher’s theoretical background knowledge offered an additional tool which helped guide the interpretation of the data. Frame Analysis was used to code different positions for each text and transcript of conversations.
The framing techniques helped group ideas into frames, defined as organizing principles used to transform flexible and fragmentary information into a relatively meaningful design containing the definition of a problem and (usually) a proposal for a solution (Verloo, 2005b).
The discussions about ethnic disparities were framed in multiple, and often opposing ways. Discourses about problems do not necessarily involve damaging conditions that need to be solved. For example, within a frame that presents Roma people as having a problematic way of life, they may be portrayed as a problem, but discrimination against them not. As Edelman (1988, p. 13) observed, “if social problems are constructions, it is evident that conditions that hurt people need not become problems”. Rather, culturally available frames can be used to describe problems which ultimately lead to a reproduced status quo. Also, from this perspective, solutions involve strategies for specific courses of action within a particular ideology. In this
105
sense, silence about damaging conditions and possible solutions can also function as a reinforcement of a preferred ideology.
3.3. Concluding Remarks
This chapter described the specific methodological approach of frame analysis and the methods adopted by this study. Frame analysis begins with the assumption that there are multiple understandings and interpretations about problems and solutions emerging during the process of policy making and implementation. The chapter raised a few reflexive points about this methodology, and the ways it was adapted for this thesis. The chapter also evaluated the utility of frame analysis for the study of diverse views about disparities in academic publications, policy documents and group conversations in contexts where policy measures for resolving ethnic disparities were implemented. The communities of practice which were used as sites for data collection were described. Lastly, the chapter described in detail the methods used to select, code, and analyse the data, setting the ground for the following analytical chapters.
106
CHAPTER 4: VIEWS ABOUT ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN ACADEMIC