As several authors have argued that all research involves both inductive and deductive processes to some extent (Biddle, Markland, Gilbourne, Chatzisarantis, & Sparkes, 2001; Côté, Salmela, Abderrahim, & Russell, 1993), it is therefore impossible for me to claim that only one approach was used within this study. As such, the deductive elements of my study can be identified as stemming from the general sociological-phenomenological framework of the study, my previous knowledge of competitive swimming, and my observations as these provided me with some form of thematic guidance as to what questions to ask in interviews and aspects to look for during observations. The research questions themselves also provided a deductive element as they identify certain areas the researcher is attempting to establish within the data. However, the data analysis did include an inductive emphasis as well, by seeking to reflect upon and remain true to the participants’ experiences and the meanings of their lifeworld as conveyed to me, and theorising from the data gathered. The following sections outline how this approach was adopted.
112
3.10.1 Data Immersion
In keeping with Giorgi’s (1997) phenomenological method, the first stage of the analysis process began with my immersion in the data. I began by reading and re-reading the interview transcripts and observation notes to gain a global sense of the data. At this stage there was no attempt to thematise any aspect of the descriptions collected, but gaining a global sense of the data is an important step as it helps to influence how the parts are constituted (Giorgi, 1997). Having read the interview transcripts and observation notes a number of times the next step was to begin to break the data down to identify themes and sub-themes. It is at this point that I deviate from Giorgi’s prescribed method of transfer tables and meaning units, instead utilising an approach to qualitative thematic analysis (TA) as described by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2013) which attended to the generation of themes from the data and is more in keeping with the underpinning sociological elements of the project. TA was selected due to its ability to explore the meanings and significances of the participants’ experiences, seeking to gain insight into their lived experiences and the competitive swimming lifeworld. It is Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2013) TA approach and how I engaged with it that the remainder of this section details.
3.10.2 Thematic Analysis.
Braun and Clarke (2013) define TA8, as a method for identifying, analysing and reporting
patterns (themes), within the dataset; an approach they describe as ‘flexible’ as it is not tied to a particular theoretical framework and therefore remains relatively detached from specific ontological and epistemological anchors. As a result of this flexibility Braun and Clarke’s TA approach suits a range of qualitative research questions or investigations, including analyses of people’s experiences in relation to a specific phenomenon (Braun, Clarke, & Weate, 2016). Braun and Clarke (2013) and Braun et al. (2016) describe the process of TA by utilising a six-phase model (see Table 3.4). They are, however, quick to acknowledge that in describing TA in this way they portray TA as a linear, un-messy process which couldn’t be further from the truth. Rather, TA is more “an adventure than a recipe” (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 4) where one moves back and forth as required between the data
8 Braun and Clarke (2019, p. 4) have subsequently renamed their approach ‘reflexive thematic analysis’ to
distinguish it from other forms of TA, and to better convey the need for researchers using their approach to engage with “reflexivity, theoretical knowingness and transparency”.
113 and the analysis, refining and redeveloping the generated themes and concepts. Such an analysis therefore involves both inductive and deductive steps in order to construct knowledge from the data.
Table 3.4 Phases of Thematic Analysis (adapted from Braun & Clarke, 2013)
Phase Description of the Process
Familiarising yourself with the data
Transcription of data, reading and re-reading the data, noting down initial ideas or thoughts
Generating initial codes Identifying and labelling interesting features in the data Searching for themes Gathering codes into potential ‘higher-level’ themes Reviewing themes Checking whether themes fit with the data and address
research question
Defining and naming themes Generating clear definitions and names for each theme that capture succinctly the “essence” of each theme Producing the report Selection of illustrative and analytic extracts that relate
back to the research question and literature. Production of scholarly report
3.10.3 The Process of Thematic Analysis
In completing the data analysis, I followed the phases of thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2013) in Table 3.4. The process that I followed in reference to each of these phases was as follows.
Phase 1: Familiarising myself with the data: This was done through the process of listening
to each audio file, transcribing the interviews, and reading each of the transcriptions and observational notes on a number of occasions to gain a global sense of the data, as outlined in section 3.10.1. After several readings I began to make preliminary notes in reference to recurring topics of conversation from the interviews, or actions recorded in the observational notes. It should, however, be stressed that due to the nature of the data collection process involved i.e. three distinct phases that included observational notes and interview data from each phase, I was also able to use each phase to inform the next. As these readings and re-readings continued throughout each phase of the data collection, I was able to begin the process of allocating codes to the data.
114
Phase 2 Generating initial codes. Having familiarised myself with the data, I was already
beginning to understand the common elements that were present within. As a result, although I used an open form of coding where I didn’t have any predetermined codes that I was matching the data to, I was aware of what the data was already saying. Coding was initially undertaken through a paper and pen exercise where I read each transcript and marked every significantly identifiable statement or comment with a code. For example, any content/statements relating to the various senses were coded under a code that represented that sense, i.e. touch, sound, etcetera. If a statement fitted into more than one code, it was coded to both. Once this pen and paper exercise was completed, I then uploaded each of the transcripts into NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd, V.12) and using the generated codes mapped these across into the analysis software. Initially I developed a list of over 400 codes. These codes where subsequently reviewed to condense similar codes together or remove duplicates. I was able to then apply these refined codes from the first round of interviews to the observational notes and final focus group interviews (axial coding).
Phase 3 Searching for Themes: Related codes with logical connections were then grouped
under parent codes to assist in the development and identification of themes. Continuing with the example from above, the relevant sensory codes were collated under a parent code of “The Swimming Sensorium” (See Figure 3.2). If a code fitted into more than one category, or parent code, it was placed in the one that fitted most relevantly in the context of the study. Phase 4 Reviewing themes: This was done via Excel (Microsoft) in which I was able to begin the process of grouping together the parent codes into a thematic map. This thematic map was reconfigured several times to ensure the themes represented the data but were also distinguishable and well defined. Phase 5 Defining and naming themes: This was conducted alongside Phase 4 and was aided through discussions with my supervisory team. Phase 6 Producing the report: This was a crucial part of the thematic analysis, made even more challenging by the difficulties of trying to represent embodied experiences in written form. The following section deals with these challenges of representation.
115
Figure 3.2 Example of NVivo Parent Coding