Literature describing the analytical stage of qualitative research is underdeveloped, despite its difficulty and importance. Arguing that a “huge chasm often separates data from conclusions” (Eisenhardt 1989: 539), Eisenhardt suggests a ‘within-case analysis’ to handle the deluge of data that is amassed. Part of this within-case analysis involves a simple write- up describing the case, which is central to the generation of insight (Gersick 1988; Pettigrew 1988) and necessary to help the research to avoid ‘death by data asphyxiation’ (Pettigrew 1988). Thus it was important to begin with the development of a strong narrative describing the case in its entirety (Maylor and Blackmon 2005). Although this can be done thematically, the case is an investigation into how an organisation uses scenario planning to inform the strategic planning process—the key words being ‘inform’ and ‘process’. Therefore, as was seen in Figure 3.1 (above), to understand fully the use of scenario planning within the wider strategic planning process, the case was examined as a chronological process (examples of this in related literature can be seen in Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991; and Masrani et al. 2006). Consequently, the first step was to organise a narrative, helped by the use of a data display (see Eisenhardt 1989; Carter and Mueller 2002) to clarify the type of data to be used at each point in the description (see Table 3.11 below).
Much of the analytical process is dependent on the investigator’s rigorous thinking, the presentation of evidence and the openness to alternative interpretations. It has been
suggested that quantification may be possible when cases involve an embedded unit of analysis (Pelz 1981). However, when the main unit of analysis is the process and the embedded unit is a planning document informed by the discursive practices inherent to that process, statistical analysis would not yield the kind of insights this study is attempting to reveal.
The analysis should begin with one of two general strategies: either relying on theoretical propositions, or developing a case description (Yin 1994). As was described during the literature review, the writings on scenario planning are lacking in empirical studies describing the follow-through process and acknowledging scenario planning as an activity of episodic, interactive strategizing. Thus, as the goal is to use a descriptive study to illustrate how scenario planning informs the strategic planning process, the general analytical strategy begins with a desire to develop a descriptive framework for organising the case study.
The specific analytical techniques advocated by Yin (1994: 106-119) do not suit the nature of this case study. To perform a ‘pattern-matching’ strategy, the analysis must begin with a set of propositions to test, which this thesis does not have; similarly for ‘time-series analysis’, propositions are used in conjunction with some form of single or multiple temporal scheme; ‘program logic’ is similar again—described as a combination of pattern-matching and time- series analysis, it uses cause-effect patterns between independent and dependent variables that may suit explanatory and exploratory case studies but not descriptive ones. While this case is exploratory, much of its value comes from its descriptiveness. Yin’s final analytical strategy, ‘explanation-building’, is centred on analysing the case by building an explanation about it (Yin 1982). However, as this is designed for explanatory cases, and this is more exploratory, it is necessary to look towards a similar procedure to help generate, as opposed to test, hypotheses, and develop ideas for further study. Thus, a more grounded approach was employed, where theory is not derived deductively but rather developed inductively from a corpus of data.
Table 3.11 - Data display
Episode Temporal
Period Event/Description Data used to study the event
1
2000
Organisation of the Fife
Partnership Documentation (formal studies and reports)
1
2000 The first Fife Community
plan Documentation (internal documents; formal studies and reports)
1
2000 The first Fife Community
plan Interviews (members of the Fife Partnership; former members of the Fife Partnership)
1
Oct. 2002 Decision by Fife Council to
use Scenario Planning Documentation (communiqués; meeting information; internal documents)
1
Oct. 2002 Decision by Fife Council to use Scenario Planning
Interviews (members of the Fife Partnership; supporting non- Partnership members; scenario planning facilitators)
2 Nov. 2002 – Mar. 2003 Description of Fife Council's Scenario Planning process
Documentation (communiqués; meeting information; internal documents; formal studies and reports)
2
Nov. 2002 – Mar. 2003
Description of Fife Council's Scenario
Planning process Interviews (members of the Fife Partnership; supporting non- Partnership members; scenario planning facilitators)
3
Mar. 2003 The Scenario-to-Policy
process Documentation (communiqués; meeting information; internal documents; formal studies and reports)
3
Mar. 2003 The Scenario-to-Policy process
Interviews (members of the Fife Partnership; supporting non- Partnership members; scenario planning facilitators)
3
Apr. 2003 – Feb 2005
Outcomes & Follow- through from the Scenario Planning process
Documentation (communiqués; meeting information; internal documents; formal studies and reports)
3
Apr. 2003 – Feb 2005
Outcomes & Follow- through from the Scenario
Planning process Interviews (members of the Fife Partnership; supporting non- Partnership members; scenario planning facilitators; uninvolved non-Partnership members)
3
Mar. 2005 Production of 'Winds of
Change' Document Documentation (meeting information; internal documents; formal studies and reports)
3
Mar. 2005 Production of 'Winds of Change' Document
Interviews (members of Policy & Organisational Development; members of the Fife Partnership)
3
Oct. 2005 Decision to re-engage the
use of scenarios Documentation (communiqués; meeting information; internal documents)
3
Oct. 2005 Decision to re-engage the use of scenarios
Interviews (members of the Fife Partnership; supporting non- Partnership members)
4
Oct. 2005 Publication of 'State of Fife 2005' & 'Progress against Community Plan Milestones 2005'
Documentation (meeting information; internal documents; formal studies and reports)
4
Oct. 2005 Publication of 'State of Fife 2005' & 'Progress against Community Plan
Milestones 2005' Interviews (members of Policy & Organisational Development)
4
Apr. 2006 Revisiting the Scenarios Documentation (communiqués; meeting information; internal documents)
4
Apr. 2006 Revisiting the Scenarios
Non-participant observation (community planning workshops)
4
Apr. 2006 Revisiting the Scenarios
Interviews (members of the Fife Partnership; supporting non- Partnership members; scenario planning facilitators)
4
Apr. – Sept. 2006
The Scenario-to-Policy
Process Documentation (meeting information; internal documents)
4
Apr. – Sept. 2006
The Scenario-to-Policy
Process Non-participant observation (community planning workshops)
4
Apr. – Sept. 2006
The Scenario-to-Policy Process
Interviews (members of the Fife Partnership; supporting non- Partnership members; scenario planning facilitators)
5
Sept. 2006 – present
The Strategy Creation
process Documentation (communiqués; meeting information; internal documents; formal studies and reports)
5
Sept. 2006 – present
The Strategy Creation process
Non-participant observation (community planning workshops)
5
Sept. 2006 – present
The Strategy Creation process
Interviews (Fife Partnership members from each 'Key' area; non- Partnership members from management teams in each 'Key' area; members of Fife Partnership; supporting non-Partnership members)
5
Sept. 2006 – Apr. 2008
Outcomes and follow- through from the Scenario Planning process
Documentation (communiqués; meeting information; internal documents; formal studies and reports)
5
Sept. 2006 – Apr. 2008
Outcomes and follow- through from the Scenario
Planning process Non-participant observation (community planning workshops)
5
Sept. 2006 – Apr. 2008
Outcomes and follow- through from the Scenario Planning process
Interviews (Fife Partnership members from each 'Key' area; non- Partnership members from management teams in each 'Key' area; members of Fife Partnership; supporting non-Partnership members)
3.9.1 Grounded Theory – Coding & Analysis
Advocates of grounded theory (see Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1998) suggest beginning with a microscopic examination and interpretation of the data through a line-by- line analysis (though often that can mean single words or complete paragraphs) to generate the initial categories (the process of open coding) and to suggest relationships among those categories (the process of axial coding). This examination is designed to help discover the relevant dimensions of the case so that, through careful consideration and scrutiny of the data, novel concepts and relationships are revealed to develop systematically the categories and their properties.
The coding of data—part of the analytical process in grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998)—is broken down into three parts: open, axial, and selective (see Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1998; Saunders et al. 2007) but is preceded by the identification of critical instances, which involves highlighting key passages in the text. During open coding the data was broken down into discrete parts and then examined closely and compared thematically for both similarities and differences. The names attributed for the conceptualisation of the data were derived by both the analyst (through meaning or imagery evoked in the data, for example, “Thinking as Fife”) or by words or phrases used by the respondents themselves—examples of these ‘in vivo’ codes (see Glaser and Strauss 1967) from within the case are “priorities” and “accountability”.
After the emergence of phenomena, the data was organised into categories and sub- categories—during this process no specific computer-based qualitative data programmes (e.g., ‘Nvivo’) were used, instead coding and analysing was performed by hand before using ‘Microsoft Excel’ and ‘Apple iWork Numbers’ to assist in the organisation and display of data. As suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998), both memos and diagrams were used to assist in the coding and analysis process. Figure 3.3 is a vignette of the coding process using an interview with the Fife Partnership Manager (FPS 1):
Figure 3.3 - Vignette of the coding process Excerpt GB: Why was the scenario planning process re-engaged?
FPS 1: My understanding was…that there was a view that, in terms of further revising the community plan, there needed to be a clearer focus. There was a sense that although the 2000 and 2004 versions of the community plan were very inclusive and very comprehensive, what they gained from being quite comprehensive was the fact that there was a lack of clarity, in terms of priorities, and there was also a lack of clarity in terms of accountability, in terms of who was responsible for doing what. I think there was an element of confusion about that. So I think there was a sense that it would be really helpful to have this strategic conversation, as they called it, and I think it’s to Fife’s credit that the partners were able to step back from their sectoral interests and take a longer term look at what the big issues are in Fife.
Open Coding
Reasons for re-engaging the Scenario Planning process – “clearer focus”
Hindering factors – “lack of clarity” – “priorities” & “accountability” Benefits of a “strategic conversation” – Thinking as ‘Fife’
Category Sub-Category Quote Source Page Line
Reasons for SP2 Clearer Focus “…in terms of further revising the community plan,
there needed to be a clearer focus” I.tran.9 4 24-25
SP1 Hindering Factors
Lack of Clarity in Priorities
“although the 2000 and 2004 versions of the community plan were very inclusive and very comprehensive… there was a lack of clarity, in terms of priorities”
I.tran.9 4 26-28
Lack of Clarity in Accountability
“although the 2000 and 2004 versions of the community plan were very inclusive and very comprehensive… there was also a lack of clarity in terms of accountability” I.tran.9 4 26-28 Benefits of a Strategic Conversation Thinking as Fife
“there was a sense that it would be really helpful to have this strategic conversation…the partners were able to step back from their sectoral interests and take a longer term look at what the big issues are in Fife.”
I.tran.9 4 30-34
The purpose of axial coding is to begin reassembling data fractured during the open coding. Although the axial coding need not be sequential to open coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998), it was done in this case to help form more precise and thorough explanations pertaining to the phenomena. Procedurally, this is done through relating “categories to sub-categories along the lines of their properties and dimensions” (Strauss and Corbin 1998: 124). Axial coding44
equips the researcher to understand more fully the interaction of structure and process to
capture the dynamic and working nature of events—something which helped answer the research questions stipulated in the introduction to this thesis and in section 3.6 (above).
Finally, selective coding is a process of integrating and refining categories that occurs after a period of extensive data collection and the establishment primary and sub categories (Saunders et al. 2007). The main purpose of this process of integration is discovering the central category from which to relate the other categories. This stage was assisted by the development of the initial storyline of the case and diagrams illustrating the process and function of the scenario planning exercises. The final stage after this process was the writing-up of the case itself, presenting a description of the events of community planning in Fife that helps uncover how scenario planning informs and organisation’s strategic planning process.