PAVIMENTOS

Within grounded theory, analysis of data is undertaken via a process of coding. As a process, coding is about defining what the data is about, with the aim being to derive conceptual understandings of the phenomena under investigation.

In its original form, grounded theory analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) involved a simple three stage coding process: open, selective, and theoretical coding. However, following the publication of the ‘coding paradigm’ by Strauss and Corbin (1990) there is a variety of different approaches open to those undertaking analyses within the framework of grounded theory method.

In practice, coding is the process of analysing data by attaching significance and concepts to individual segments of the data. Within grounded theory, coding is the mechanism used during analysis to help build and support the generation of theory. In its simplest terms, during analysis the researcher assigns a code (or identity, or name) to individual segments of the data. Then through a process of constant comparison, and the addition of new data, plausible relationships and interconnections can be derived

from between differing codes. Which in turn can be used to help further develop emergent concepts and categories, going on to help generate the theory.

Irrespective of the iteration of grounded theory used (Glasser, 1978; Strauss, 1987; Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2008), open coding is the term assigned to the first stage in the data analysis process.

During this initial phase, I examined my transcribed data at a surface level word-by- word and line-by-line to identify categories, properties and dimensions within the narrative. As a process, open coding breaks down and fractures the data analytically, the aim of which was to bring out, amongst other factors, similarities and differences in participant’s experience of the phenomena under investigation. These initial codes provided a basis for higher order coding and as my main categories emerged they were classified and through analysis reconnected; brought back together to form categories and sub-categories.

During the preliminary stage of analysis I made the mistake of using descriptive rather than analytical classifications to summarise and organise segments of data. However, recognizing my error I turned to the use of coding families to avoid labelling my data descriptively and avoid creating weak data sets (Figure 3.3).

In his seminal work ‘Theoretical Sensitivities’ to support grounded theory researchers in the process of data analysis Glaser (1978) introduced 18 coding families, which were later expanded to incorporate 7 more, giving 25 families in total (Glaser, 2005). Coding

families help a researcher to see how categories may relate to each other and during analysis, they are used to undertake the process of coding, I referred constantly to coding family descriptors to assist me in assigning ‘names’ to segments of my data.

I am not at all sure if I used the codes as Glaser intended, but crucially referring to and using the codes in this way helped me to analyse my data analytically rather than descriptively. Having had a ‘false start’ where my initial attempt of analysis was weak, producing largely descriptive outcomes this helped me to really get underneath, and in- between, segments of my data. Enabling me to assign a code based on the meaning behind the statement, rather than simply attaching a name to the surface of the data segment itself.

Figure 3.3

In the original Glaserian version of grounded theory (Glasser & Strauss, 1978) the second stage of analysis, where one piece of coded data is compared to another, is known as selective coding. This stage is sometimes referred to as ‘focused coding’ or within the Strauss and Corbin (1990) coding paradigm as ‘axial coding’.

In Glaser’s view (1992), the coding paradigm prevents natural emergence and creates a mechanism that ‘forces’ data, which is then subject to having a theory applied. Whereas he argued that data should be allowed to speak for itself and emerge naturally. However, it should be noted that in later iterations (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) having revised their thinking, the term axial coding is no longer in use.

In this study during the second phase of the process involved constant comparison between the open codes, in order to explore the potential to cluster categories. The aim being that through further sampling it is then possible to generate core categories (Glasser & Strauss, 1967). In my study, data was analysed in line with guidance and procedures advocated by Charmaz (2014). Through the constant comparison and theoretical sorting, I highlighted similarities and differences in, and between, my data sets. This allowed me to integrate and reduce the number of categories and codes. This process is known as substantive coding and was used to support me in the generation of substantive theoretical insights.

During each phase of coding, I attached flexible working titles to describe each of my categories. Moving forward from the selective coding and following theoretical sampling, during further iterative analysis and refinement of the data links between the

categories were made. Further analysis and the constant comparison of the focused, selective codes led to the generation of substantive and theoretical codes, and ultimately the study’s research outcomes.

3.9 Chapter summary

Having laid out the rationale for my study, in this chapter I made clear my ontological and philosophical position and set the scene for the exploration of my methodology and research methods.

I outlined the principles and criteria for participant selection, the biographical detail of participants engaged in the study, presented the procedures, processes and sampling techniques used during each phase of my study. I gave detail of how ethical approval and the engagement of research participants was secured with specific aspects of the research design that were put in place to ensure adherence to ethical strategy, procedures, and guidelines, to assure both the accuracy and consistency of data collection, and ensure participant well-being, confidentiality, and anonymity, were also articulated.

The chapter went onto explain the process of analysis and how coding procedures, and techniques including memo writing, integrative and diagrammatic memos were employed to support the effective analysis of my data.

4.0 Chapter Four