“In general, data analysis means a search for patterns in data – recurrent behaviors, objects, or a body of knowledge. Once a pattern is identified, it is interpreted in terms of a social theory or the setting in which it occurred”
(Newman 2000, p. 426).
The implementation of the discourse analysis, a three-phase process which has been used for data analysis, involves stages of data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification (Miles and Huberman approach 1994). These three phases are interrelated. They occur concurrently and shape one another as discussed below.
Data reduction: data reduction is a part of analysis that helps to sharpen, sort, focus, discard, and organize the data in a way that allows “final” conclusions to be drawn and verified. It occurs continuously throughout the research, even prior to the actual data collection. In the early stage of analysis, it is represented in e.g. the identification of the research questions, case study, the sub cases, and the data collection methods. In the middle stage, data reduction takes place through coding and memoing. The process of data reduction persists after the fieldwork, until the final report is produced. When reducing the data, it is crucial to be careful not to lose significant data or strip the data from their context (Punch 2000).
162 Data display: The reduced data need to be organized by displaying it in an immediately accessible, compact or summarized form so that the analysts as well as readers can see what is happening. The displays can include graphs, figures, charts, tables (return to table of contents for examples of figures and table used in this study).
Data display became then a base for further analysis to facilitate drawing conclusions.
Conclusion drawing and verification: this is the final phase of analysis. The aim of this stage is to integrate what has been achieved into a meaningful and coherent picture of data. It is in this stage that the researcher begins to formally decide what things mean. Some conclusions might loom to researchers in previous analytical stages of data collection. Yet, however, Miles and Huberman (1994) surmised that researchers need to hold these conclusions to be formed in the final stage and until all data are already in. Also in this stage, the concepts and proposition are presented in a form of the research findings (this is presented in Chapter 6, and further discussion about enfolding prior theories to interpret the findings is presented in Chapter 8). Further, Miles and Huberman (1994) emphasised that the meaning emerging from the data needs to be tested for their trustworthiness (see Section 5.6., Chapter 5 for details on the quality considerations of this study).
Figure 17: Components of Data Analysis: Interactive model (Miles and Huberman 1994, p.
12)
163 Taken together, the above introduces three phases: data reduction, data display and conclusion. Drawing and verification include three main concurrent operations: coding, memoing and developing propositions (see 6.3.2.2.):
Figure 18: Structure of the data analysis process within the strategy of generating the research theory
Contrary to quantitative research, there are no clear lines between data collection and data analysis in qualitative research (Tesch 1990; Stake 1995; Neuman 2006). In this study, the analysis is conducted concurrently with the data collection. It begins with a thorough reading of the data during the fieldwork to get a sense of their scope (Taylor and Bogden 1998). Hence, thoughts for making sense of data emerged during the fieldwork – which is exploratory in its nature. They were immediately written as a
The activity model
The final outcome of this process is
A theory-based model of DMS effectiveness evaluation Drawing conclusions The four highlighted boxes refer to the four stages of theory building strategy, see figure
Figure 8: The process of theory generation
This process is guided by Gee approach (2005) for Meso discourse analysis and Miles andHuberman (1994)
164 field notes. This process of field notes taking is regarded as a part of data analysis.
Patton (2002) emphasised:
“Ideas that emerge while researchers still in the fieldwork constitutes the beginning of analysis; they are part of the record of field notes” (2002, p.
436).
Based on the above discussion, the analysis of this research is guided by concepts of Meso discourse analysis, informed by thinking devices of Gee approach, as well as his set of primary steps in doing discourse analysis which is further developed by using the systematic approach of Miles and Huberman (1994). The following chapter presents the detailed process of analyzing the research evidence as informed by Meso discourses (Gee approach (2005) combined with miles and Huberman approach (1994)).
165
A discourse analysis, according to Gee’s approach, involves “asking questions about the seven building tasks listed below, using the tools of inquiry (situated meanings, social languages, discourse
models, intersexuality, Discourses and conversations) as well as thinking about any other language details of the data that look relevant (Gee, 2005).
Tools of inquiry:
- Situated meanings: The meaning that people give to words or phrases they use.”The specific meanings words take on in specific contexts of use" (Gee 2005, p. 172).
- Discourse models: “are theories by which people are operating on a given occasion-they may operate by different theories on different occasions. “(Gee 2005, p. 176). (Question: how and why they think about what they think). 'Situated meanings can guide us to Discourse models, since often people are giving words specific situated meanings because they are operating with specific Discourse models.”
(Gee 2005, p. 174). However, we may need to consult other situated meanings of different words to guide us to a particular Discourse model that is used in a conversation.
- Social languages (the same language used among certain groups), conversations (arguments and motifs) and Intertexuality (cross ref. or spoken text relate to or quotes another one): are tools of inquiry that need to be further analyzed. Gee emphasized that discourse analysis is doing much more than just language in use and these additional elements must also be examined.
Seven building tasks of situation:
Gee argues that through language we create situations when we talk or write, However, the situation also influences us in terms of how we speak. Gee identifies seven "building tasks", i.e. areas of reality that we construct when we speak or write. He said "we build situations by using language to carry out seven building tasks" (Gee 2005, p. 97). These tasks are thus the components of any situation;
however, it is not necessarily to find them all in each situation. Gee (2005, p. 111) presented 26 questions to be asked when analyzing texts, these include the following seven tasks and the above-mentioned tools of inquiry.
1. Significance: we use language to make things significant, as we give them meaning or value. What are these?
2. Activities: Language is also used when we want to get recognized in a certain kind of activity (building task 2) or in other words, through language certain activities get enacted.
1. Identities: what identity is formed through language? We all have various professional, social and private roles and we speak and write as these identities require us to do.
2. Relationships: we also use language to signal our relationships that we have or would want to have.
3. Politics: it is the implications that the talk hold. We use language to convey our perspective on a particular social situation (social goods). We use language in our talk that is carrying a particular perspective even if we did not say this perspective explicitly, e.g. what is taken to be normal, proper, right or wrong and how does this expressed by language in a piece of conversation.
4. Connections: How can a piece of language connect or disconnect things? How does it make one thing relevant or irrelevant to another?
5. Sign systems and knowledge: language can privilege or disprivilege specific sign systems or ways of knowing, e.g. English over other languages, or technical language over everyday language use.
6. General steps of Gee's discourse analysis approach guided by the above mentioned tools of inquiry (as he called it Gee's model of discourse analysis)
- Pick some keywords and phrases in the data or related families of them.
- Ask yourself what situated meanings these words and phrases seem to have in your data. (Give what you know about the overall context in which data accrued).
- Ask yourself what discourse models these situated meanings appear to implicate.
- Think about the social language and discourses that appear to be relevant to, in whatever ways to your data. If it is easier to think about what conversations are relevant to your data, then do that.
Table 9: Main concepts and general steps of Gee’s approach (2005)
166 6.3.2. The process of analyzing the evidence
After discussing the adoption of Meso discourse analysis, the process of investigating stakeholders’ understandings of DMS effectiveness will be explored (see Section 6.2 on the evidence collected and the methods used to collect them).