Modelo Dinámico: DFBA para CCBM1737

This is an important sub-section, especially considering Giorgi’s (2010, p3-22) critique of IPA’s method’s not being prescriptive. Though I do feel that Smith (2010, p186 - 191) has left these criticisms to rest, Giorgi’s critique does point to an interpretation of IPA as not methodical. Having thus clearly explained my vantage point above in the section on methodology, I now undertake to clearly delineate my method in this sub-section, hence in a way making Giorgi’s critique inapplicable to this study.

Following the semi-structured interviews, the digital recording was transcribed. I then listened several times to each recording, correcting the transcription and also making initial descriptive notes in the margins (see Table 1 below for an example). After this, I commenced with the analysis proper. Focusing on one participant at a time, I went over each line (a line in this context has a similar

45

meaning as in a screenplay, with the researcher’s question being one line, the response the next, with no relevance to the actual number of lines on the page) and commented on it. My comments were initially mostly descriptive, merely describing what the participant was saying. As I gradually became more familiar with the text, I added more interpretative and semantic notes, and also occasional queries or ideas that came up for me. Finally, using both the verbatim and my comments thereupon, I started drawing together emergent themes, and labelled the text with these.

Table 1: Anonymised transcript excerpt

Emergent theme Verbatim Descriptive Interpretative Queries and Ideas The DevAid psychological support failed to provide rationalization and understanding of attacks, he had to do it himself Acknowledging that something is difficult is supportive Support is seen as emotional support The lack of psychological monitoring allows staff to go beyond their limit

Probably, yeah, and then my having a psychologist would have helped to rationalize some of this I think. And to understand emotionally how it was affecting me, and probably draw strength from it. By a better understanding knowing, well, first of all a better understanding is always better, but having also, some advice on coping strategies, things that you can do, or, knowing what your limit is. Cause I think that’s another danger, not that I experienced this but I can imagine for some people there’s a limit, and after you cross that limit, then it starts to get bad. So there were people who became very, very addicted to alcohol, I would say, and that was their way of escaping, but that’s because they’d reached their limit. Because they had no outlet, say actually you’ve reached your limit, you need to do either this, this or this, then sort of reverted to the original

psychotherapist

A psychologist would have assisted in the

rationalization to manage stress. It would also have given understanding and coping strategies. The reason that some people turned to alcohol, or pass their ‘limit’ of anxiety or stress, is that there is no psychologist there to tell them that what they need to do as they approach the limit. A psychologist needs to help with understanding and coping (rationalization) . A psychologist would be an outlet that saves people from going over the limit (and self-medicating with alcohol). The original psychother apist = alcohol?

46

As can be seen in the table above, my descriptive comments remain close to what the participant said, in effect paraphrasing or summing up what they said. The interpretative ones are more

speculative and include more of what I feel is being said, my reactions and thoughts. In a similar way, when I made semantic comments, noticing how a participant consistently used metaphors with reference to something, or maybe very non-committal and self-diminishing language, it would be my ideas that I would note down about it – it is an interpretation and not a fact. The queries and ideas column was reserved for wild ideas that if they reappeared consistently or in other ways could add to the understanding would be useful, otherwise they would be disregarded. The emergent themes were very tentative at this stage, more akin to loose ideas taking form than firm labels. There was an average of 99 distinct emergent themes per participant. Each theme was seen to apply on average two times. Having completed this process with a participant, I would then print out the emergent themes and try to cluster them into groups, and a shape gradually started to form. Some emergent themes fell in importance, being either weak or indeed being subsumed under other stronger themes. Having established this tentative understanding of a participant, I would then move on to the next one, repeating the process.

In the end, I had seven hierarchically organized theme trees in front of me, superordinate themes subsuming themes which in turn subsumed subthemes, and I proceeded to investigate where the commonalities or indeed discrepancies lay. A total of 693 emergent themes had been organized by individual, and the task was now to create a picture of the whole. Some groupings quickly became obvious, whilst other emergent themes stood alone, represented by merely one or two participants. It is important to note that being contrary or different from the general picture did not imply that the emergent theme should be scrapped, this with reference to the openness to paradox and plurality discussed earlier. The criterion for whether an emergent theme should remain was with reference to its importance for the “participants’ attempts to make sense of their experiences”

47

(Smith, Flowers, Larkin, 2009, p79) and how well it was connected to the original verbatim. In the end I arrived at a prototype of the theme tree in Appendix 6, and commenced with writing the results chapter that follows this methodology section.

The writing up was much more than writing up in that it became part of the iterative research process. A crucial part was the necessity to go back to the original verbatim of the participants (using the line references connected to each theme, linking it back to all the places in the transcript where it originated), and how this affected the theme tree. Some themes had gained in importance during the analysis, an importance that wasn’t fully reflected in the original verbatim, and hence had to be diminished in their prominence. Yet others had been neglected and needed to be pushed to the foreground more. Furthermore, during the course of the writing an entirely new theme emerged. I see this this as testament to the centrality of the writing process that van Manen continually highlights (1990, 2006). It is also an example of Gadamer’s (1975/2004) hermeneutic circle in that there is a movement between the whole and the particular, both informing the other. As I lived with the text over time, a background assumption of the participants became manifest, there was

something about ‘us and them’ that underpinned many of their assumptions and attitudes. I found it difficult to make this interpretative step, initially finding such level of interpretation unethical towards the manifest text as uttered by the participants, yet the degree of fit with the material when it was applied made the choice seem more natural and appropriate.