Gestión de Riesgos

I collected qualitative data, which were analysed thematically. Thematic analysis was important as it helped me to understand the core meaning and significance of findings from participants’ interpretations and beliefs (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2011). I included data from Phase 1 and Phase 2 fieldwork in my analysis as they all provided useful insights for understanding the research problem. Data analysis was designed to achieve two purposes. First, to explain how I analysed my data, and second, to describe how I developed the final sub-theme categories.

3.6.5.1 Analysis methods

Figure 3.2, below, demonstrates my thematic analysis framework, which I called Talanoa Māfana, showing that the findings from my theoretical review as reflected in the concept of TVM and approaches to TMM form the basis for which my analysis has been generated. My analysis was driven by the three approaches of TMM that I used during data collection: talanoa mo e loto, pō talanoa, and talatalanoa. These approaches are interrelated in the process of searching for meaning.

Figure 3.2: Talanoa Māfana analysis framework

Core research questions:

1) How does knowledge of cultural practices help us think differently about how leadership is understood and practiced in a particular context?

2) How do the cultural identity practices of Tongans shape their leadership practices in the New Zealand Public Service?

3) What is the most appropriate methodology to use in exploring and understanding leadership as cultural practice?

Talanoa mo e loto

(constructing analysis from the heart)

R evi si t c or e r es ear ch q u es ti on s Draw conclusions Talanoa data: 16 one-to-one 4 groups  Naming  Transcribing  Reflections  Free-writing Pō talanoa

(sharing the truth of findings)  Initial engagement  Indentifying themes  Constructing sub- theme categories  Transfering talanoa notes Talatalanoa (ongoing analysis in warm relationships)  Synthesising sub- theme categories  Theorising

 Writing and thinking

The first approach is talanoa mo e loto, the introductory analysis stage refers to the ways in which I constructed the analysis so I could get closer to the heart of participants’ views and experiences of their Tongan identity and Tongan leadership practices. To achieve this, I used participants’ Tongan pseudonyms as reference for filing and analysing data. The idea of naming may be related to ‘compiling’ (Yin, 2011) or ‘organising’ (Creswell, 2009). However, the use of Tongan names is quite different as it gives me a sense of belonging to my participants’ stories and cultural backgrounds. My commitment to transcribing participants’ talanoa data is the first and foremost analytical action that gets me closer to the crux of participants’ data.

When listening while transcribing, participants’ voices and concerns were actually taking me on a cognitive and spiritual journey (Farrelly & Nabobo-Baba, 2012) that encouraged me to think and reflect on what they were saying. This highlights the importance of reflection and

free-writing or ‘disassembling data’ (Yin, 2011). To record my learning experiences from the fieldwork for analytical reasons, I created two manual files for fieldwork and analysis. In the fieldwork file, I recorded my reflections during the implementation of TMM, and in the analysis file I recorded the initial ideas of the topic that I came across during the field work and while transcribing. I also did a lot of electronic free writing that I found useful for theorising and structuring my findings chapters.

The second approach, pō talanoa analysis, refers to the descriptive analysis of data in which I closely examined participants’ talanoa in order to find answers to the core research questions. I described this stage of analysis as pō talanoa or sharing the truth of findings because it reflects the epistemological position of constructing knowledge (Carter & Little, 2007; Radnor, 2002) in the context of Talanoa Māfana. This is when I actually came to share my view with what my participants have said. As appears in Figure 3.2, above, there are four activities that I applied in this phase of analysis: initial engaging; identifying themes; constructing sub-theme categories; and transferring talanoa notes. In the initial stage, I read and re-read the whole transcript carefully to allow me to inductively draw out the meaning of themes from participants’ data ensuring it reflects the overall meaning (Creswell, 2009). While reading, I marked notes on the margin of transcripts and coloured key phrases, words, and metaphors as they were used repeatedly by participants.

In the process of ‘identifying themes’, I continued reading to uncover themes by looking for regularities or consistencies (Patton, 2002) of meanings and the relevancy of themes to my participants. This process is important, not only for arriving at themes but it is also relevant for how Tongan researchers analyse their data (Thaman, 2003). For instance, the English word ‘relationship’ and the Tongan term ‘Tauhi Vā’ were used interchangeably by my participants to highlight the importance of social or relational unity in their understanding and practices of Tongan identity and Tongan leadership. Instead of classifying the two terms separately, I actually searched for the “indigenous concepts” (Patton, 2002, p. 454) or the root meaning behind these words as perceived and experienced by participants. The themes were given a label or coded name central for organising information before giving meaning to identified themes (Creswell, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). I developed the labels from how themes emerged naturally from the data itself, an important decision to clarify during the analysis

Once themes were identified, I continued to the construction of sub-theme categories by reading and re-reading the transcripts. These categories were listed as sub-headings of each theme. For example, the emergence categories for theme LEA included ‘Tauhi Vā’, ‘learning about leadership’, and ‘context’. I extracted the appropriate quotes from participants’ transcripts through ‘copy and paste’ then transferred these into the analysis form (Appendix Eight) of each theme for further interpretation in the talatalanoa analysis phase. This form has helped me to identify who made the statement and which theme and category they belong to. The final approach is talatalanoa or the ongoing interpretive analysis of data. This is a shift from descriptive analysis of participants’ data to a more ‘logical analysis’ that incorporates my interpretation as a researcher (Patton, 2002). I found that my interpretation of data went back and forth among three activities: synthesising sub-theme categories, theorising, and writing and thinking. This process of moving back and forth allowed me to cross-check my interpretations and participants’ data for clarification purposes (Patton, 2002). In support, of this process, Collins (2010, p. 169) says that “in qualitative research it is difficult to cleanly separate out data collection from data analysis because there is movement back and forth between generation and analysis”. This means that the process of generating data that I conducted in the talatalanoa analysis phase works inter-dependently with my interpretive analysis in the pō talanoa phase during the process of data collection.

In synthesising sub-theme categories I looked for patterns of relationships across sub-theme categories and topics as this was useful for me in theorising the phenomena under study (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002; Radnor, 2002). For instance, under the theme BTON (being Tongan) an emergent sub-theme category labelled ‘upbringing’ had a lot of interrelated topics such as fakafāmili (family prayers), fakahingoa (naming protocol), and mātu’a (parents). I theorised these topics based on meanings given by participants. For example, if participants referred to their parents as people who had influenced their understanding and practice of leadership then I labelled this as ‘learning about leadership’ and considered this under LEA theme and ‘upbringing’ sub-theme category. I continued with this theorisation until all transcripts were analysed, then proceeded to the process of writing while thinking until I reached the theoretical understanding of my core research questions as illustrated in Figure 3.2 (p. 72). This conclusion refers to the overarching concept drawn out from the findings (Yin, 2011), which is expected to benefit both participants and the researcher as emphasised in the concept of talatalanoa. Figure 3.2 shows that the conclusion is made and revision of the core

research question is finalised after the talatalanoa analysis process. The next section considers how the final theme categories were developed.

3.6.5.2 The process of final categorising

I used Constas`s (1992) framework of category development to explain how and when theme categories were developed. The purpose of using this framework is to share the analytical actions that I used for developing theme categories, as I found it central not only for defining the analytical rigor of my research (Constas, 1992) but it has cultural meaning associated with the concept of Talanoa Māfana analysis. In particular, the reality about the details in which theme categories are developed cannot be considered real in the context of Talanoa Māfana unless the researcher shares it openly with their research community. Constas (1992) describes this commitment as ‘accountability’, arguing that researchers must be responsible for publicly documenting their category development actions. This openness in doing qualitative analysis is needed (Cunliffe, 2011; Gephart & Rynes, 2004; Patton, 2002; Radnor, 2002; Yin, 2011), and is also comparable with the importance of reciprocity (Lātūkefu, 1980; Thaman, 2004) as reflected in the concepts of TVM and TMM. However, Constas (1992) is concerned about the lack of transparency with most qualitative analysis in category development. Hence, deciding to share the process of category development in my research is worth considering. Constas (1992) develops the process of categorisation in two domains: one is called ‘components of categorisation’ and the other is labelled ‘temporal designation’.

First, the categorisation domain consists of three components: (1) origination (where the category came from); (2) verification (how each category was justified); and (3) nomination (where the category name came from). In the first component, origination, Constas (1992) outlines five loci of origination, but only three were applicable to my research. These were categories developed from participants’ data; researcher`s interests and interpretation of findings; and categories identified from researchers in the existing literature. In the second component, verification, Constas (1992) proposes six sources to justify the existence of each category, but I found only three to be applicable to my study: the rational, referential, and empirical. The rational source was based on my analytical reasoning about the interconnection among categories according to their natural existence from participants’ data. The referential

process of naming the categories is comparable with the origination process, the first component. Hence, the names for categories in my study were developed from participants’ data, the literature, and my analytical perspective as a researcher.

Second, the temporal domain in the process of categorisation emphasises the point at which the categories were identified during the research process. Constas (1992) proposes three temporal descriptors that I used in my research. First, categories may be developed before the actual data collection (prior). Second, categories may be created during data collection (iterative); and a third temporal descriptor is after the data have been collected (posteriori). The integration of the two domains, components of categorisation and temporal designation provides the framework for documenting category development in my research as outlined in Table 3.5 below. Each category in the table was assigned a letter from ‘a’ to ‘i’ as they emerged from the thematic analysis. These categories are classified into two major themes as given at the bottom of the table: ‘Tauhi Vā Māfana: Nurturing warm relationships’ (from ‘a’ to ‘e’) and ‘Taking Tauhi Vā Māfana to another cultural context’ (from ‘f’ to ‘i’). The components of categorisation are listed on the left side of Table 3.5 and the temporal designation is presented on the right side of the table.

As we can see from Table 3.5, the majority of theme categories were developed from participants’ data and my analytical reasoning as a researcher. For instance, in the origination components, categories such as fāmili (a), māfana (b), fua fatongia (c), and faka`apa`apa (d) were created from participants’ data during the process of data collection whereas categories (f) to (i) were created from my interpretation after data collection. On the other hand, the category dynamic context (e) originated from the existing literature before the fieldwork. In the verification components of categorisation, we can see from Table 3.5 that categories (a) to (d) were justified from empirical findings of the research during data collection, while categories (f) to (i) were verified by my interpretive analysis after data collection. Table 3.5 also depicts that category (e) was justified by my rationale, reference to existing literature, and participants’ empirical findings at different points of temporal designation. In relation to nomination, it shows that names for categories (a) to (d) were developed from participants’ data during data collection and categories (f) to (i) from my interpretation of findings after data collection. While the name for category (e) was first developed from the literature prior to data collection, it should be noted that it also appeared in participants’ data during data collection and my analysis after data collection.

Table 3.5: The process of final categorisation

COMPONENTS OF CATEGORISATION TEMPORAL DESIGNATION

Prior (before)

Origination

Where the category came from?

Participants Researcher Literature During (iterative) After (posterior) a, b, c, d e f, g, h, i Verification

How each category was justified?

Rational Referential Empirical e e, f, g, h, i a, b, c, d, e Nomination

Where the category name came from? Participant Researcher Literature e a, b, c, d, e e, f, g, h, i

TAUHI VĀ MĀFANA: NURTURING WARM RELATIONSHIPS

(a) Fāmili (familial relationships)

(b) Māfana (warm love/inner warm passion) (c) Fua fatongia (fulfilling obligations) (d) Faka`apa`apa (sacred wisdom) (e) Dynamic context

TAKING TAUHI VĀ MĀFANA TO ANOTHER CULTURAL CONTEXT

(f) Tauhi Vā Māfana: Participants’ leadership capabilities (g) Challenges of practicing Tauhi Vā Māfana in the NZPS (h) Participants’ leadership needs