A range of different grounded theory methods are presented in the literature but all consist of a systematic approach to qualitative inquiry to allow the construction of theory (Charmaz, 2017). As discussed in Chapter Three I have drawn upon CGT acknowledging that data are always social constructions; they are not exact portrayals of reality (Charmaz, 2006, p.188). This approach to data analysis
91
distinguishes a constructivist approach from other methodological approaches. There is a construction and reconstruction of data generated with participants, as opposed to uncovering an emergent truth as outlined in classical grounded theory (Mills, Francis and Bonner, 2008). In the following sections of this chapter I provide a transparent outline of my approach to data analysis and how my findings were
developed. In presenting details of this process I account for my theoretical interpretations presented in Chapters Five and Six.
4.2.1 Coding of data
Coding is the process of asking analytical questions of the gathered data, from whichever source. The aim of this process is to develop a greater understanding of the data and to direct subsequent data gathering to gain a more in-depth
appreciation of the area being studied. Initial coding involves studying words,
sentences, phrases or incidents to identify their analytic significance; codes set up a relationship with the data (Star, 2012, p.80). Charmaz recommends ‘line-by-line’ coding as an exploratory device allowing the researcher to become involved in the analysis and one which supports them to discard their pre-conceptions and see the data with fresh eyes (Charmaz, 2011b, p.172). Codes are produced as short labels and questions are posed as coding proceeds. As a result, coding assists in gaining new perspectives on the material and to focus further data collection which may lead to unforeseen directions (Charmaz, 2000, p.515). By generating action codes
Charmaz (2000) suggests that these provide an insight into what people are doing, what is happening in the setting. This approach resonates with the aim of my enquiry and provides an appropriate approach to addressing the research questions.
Focused coding involves condensing the codes already identified, highlighting what is believed to be important in the data by identifying categories (Charmaz, 2014,
92
p.140). It assists in synthesizing and conceptualizing data from the range of sources and gathered via each method. It supports comparative analysis further and allows patterns in the data to be identified as well as gaps indicating where further data is required. As a result focused coding allows the eliciting of information on the social situation being examined. Through focused coding, categories are identified and the possible relationships between these are then specified through the next stage of theoretical coding. In adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory I
recognise that data and analysis are created through an interaction between myself and the participants in the enquiry. The approach fosters an exploration of the experiences of the range of stakeholders involved in the BMS programme, arising from ‘the interactive process and its temporal, cultural, and structural contexts’ (Charmaz, 2000, p.524).
The method of theoretical abstraction and the terminology used, like other steps in GTM, is interpreted and defined differently by different researchers. My own
approach to this final stage of coding drew upon the constructivist approach as defined by Charmaz (2014, p.148). This stage supports the application of an analytic frame to the data and allows the development of a theoretical framework for the overall grounded theory. Theoretical codes, therefore, allow the researcher to conceptualise how the focused codes relate to each other as hypotheses which can be integrated into theory. This stage is strongly supported through memo writing as described below.
4.2.3 Constant Comparative analysis
Constant comparative methods are used to establish analytic differences and so allow comparisons to be made at every level of analytic work (Charmaz, 2014,
93
p.132). Codes are compared to codes, codes to categories and categories to categories allowing an inductive approach. Abductive reasoning also occurs at all stages of analysis but is an essential feature of constant comparative analysis to support theoretical integration (Birks and Mills, 2011, p11). In understanding the positioning of the range of stakeholders involved in the BMS programme the constant comparative method was instrumental in allowing me to develop a conceptual depiction of this derived from group and individuals’ narratives.
4.2.4 Memo Writing
Memo writing is a continual process that ‘helps to raise the data to a conceptual level and develop the properties of each category’ (Holton, 2012, p.281). In doing this, memos also guide the next steps in further data gathering, coding and analysis. I maintained a reflective journal throughout the data gathering and analysis process which also contained my memo writing. My reflective journal evolved throughout this enquiry from notes and jottings, highlighting possible ideas or areas for further investigation (either in the literature or via additional data gathering) to in-depth reflexive conversations with myself looking at connections in the data to provide theoretical insights. Memo writing develops existing categories, examining codes and an understanding of the relationships between categories. Clarke (2005, p.85) describes them as ‘intellectual capital in the bank’. They form an intrinsic feature of the iterative approach of CGT encouraging the researcher to stand back and focus on the codes, dissecting and comparing them allowing links to be formed. It is a way of standing back from the data and taking stock to allow actions and meanings to be conceptualised (Charmaz, 2014, p.164).
94
My reflective journal included notes of conversations that I had with a range of individuals as I met them as part of my everyday life: lecturer, personal tutor to pre- registration trainees, placement tutor, member of local BMS committees. This approach supported triangulation of the data collected; my observations in practice acting as confirmation of my analytical questioning of the data and to support a deeper understanding of their meaning. I continually reviewed entries in my journal, acknowledging changes in direction or the impact of new influences upon the direction of my enquiry and my previous perceptions. Such memo writing allowed me to immerse myself in the data and ‘experiment’ with the emerging themes
(Charmaz, 2014, p.162). I found that my scientific background aligned naturally to an approach that used flow-charts and diagrams to link data from a range of sources, supporting me to make conceptual links and compare perceptions of situations.
The following section provides details of stage one of data analysis and explains how this routed my work in an analytic direction in the early stages of the research. In clearly presenting the evolution of my enquiry’s direction I support the credibility of my findings.