The process of contrasting involved exploring the similarities and differences of the categories which resulted in determining the logical relationship between them and hence the outcome space. Again it should be emphasised that this was not a sequential process, with thoughts about the relationship between categories beginning in the analytical process at the grouping and articulating stage. This was not a conscious effort to explore structure but a naturally occurring consequence of the search for similarities and differences between categories. Ashworth and Lucas (2000) warned against foreclosing too early on the analysis in the search for a logically related set of categories of description as the analysis maybe incomplete.
However, Åkerlind (2005b) suggested that exploring structure and meaning simultaneously can be helpful, particularly in the later stages as each inform each other. This was found to be the case within the iterative process of this analysis.
When complete the outcome space is synonymous with the phenomenon of study (Marton, 2000), in this case recovery. The categories within the outcome space represent different ways of understanding the same phenomenon and as such it is expected that links will be seen between them (Bowden, 2005). It is usual within the literature for these links to be presented in a hierarchical structure which represents increasing levels of complexity of understanding, in that the higher category subsumes the lower ones but not vice versa. As Bruce et al. (2004) highlighted, some categories are more complex and powerful and therefore are placed higher in the structure of the outcome space. However, Patrick (2000) warned that it may be
detrimental to assume a hierarchical structure in advance of the analysis and it did become apparent that a basic hierarchical structure of the categories was not sufficient to explain the relationship between them. Within a hierarchical structure each category is viewed as subsuming the previous category, as the structure implies that the characteristics present in the lower categories are present in all others (Kember, 1997). However, the understanding
related to the internal and external horizons within the first category, Recovery as Clinical Improvement, was not supported in the other three categories. Although interpreted as qualitatively different, there was no clear hierarchical link. However, the other three
categories were at this stage considered to demonstrate an increasing level of complexity of understanding of recovery forming a nested hierarchy. The outcome space therefore became a branched hierarchy as shown in figure 2 where category D, Recovery as Learning to Live Differently, represents the most complex way of understanding recovery within the second branch.
Figure 2: Version 1 Outcome Space
In reviewing the research into conceptions of teaching, Kember (1997) suggested that alternative approaches to presenting the outcome space should be considered as “it seems unlikely that all scenarios are best understood by the reader if portrayed as a list of categories in hierarchical order” (p.263). Although relatively uncommon, alternative configurations have been reported in other phenomenographic studies. In nursing, Steffnak, Nordstrom, Hart and Wilde- Larsson (2014) considered perceptions of the nurses’ role in relation to the use of psychotropic medication. Three horizontally ordered categories were reported “equal in relation to each other- at the same level and not over-lapping” (p.973), suggestive of a
Recovery
Recovery as Clinical
Improvement Recovery as Making
Progress
Recovery as Managing to Live Well
Recovery as Learning to Live Differently
branched structure. A further study related to mental health nursing roles by Aflague and Ferzt (2010) considered the conceptualisation of suicide and suicide assessment. The authors clustered their 10 categories of description into three related dimensions rather than a hierarchical relationship to describe the structure of suicide assessment. Prosser, Trigwell and Taylor (1994) in their study on conceptions of learning and teaching, found qualitatively distinct categories for conceptions of teaching which fell “into two strongly contrasting subsets” (p.228), again suggesting a branch like structure rather than a hierarchical one.
This structure of the outcome space was considered as a branched hierarchy for some time, although some doubt remained about the stability of the categories, particularly the move from version three to version four and their relationship to each other. Therefore, the whole analysis was revisited several weeks later. Further consideration confirmed the categories of description as stable and complete; however, revisiting the structure of the outcome space highlighted inconsistencies which did not fit with a hierarchical nested ordering of the second branch. Whilst variation between the categories remained as qualitatively distinct, the more complex understandings of recovery did not contain all the characteristics of the less complex categories. It was apparent that at times some characteristics were replaced rather than subsumed. A similar outcome space is described by Bradbeer, Healey and Kneale (2004) in identifying undergraduate conceptions of teaching, learning and geography. They reported a non- hierarchical structure in that some conceptions were subsumed by higher ones, but others stood as alternatives. In a review of 13 studies on conceptions of teaching Kember (1997) reported that the findings were not consistent with hierarchical ordering, suggesting that categories are better portrayed as positions within a continuum when the characteristics of the lower categories are not found in the higher ones. Cousin (2008b) also suggested categories could be placed along a continuum, in a hierarchical structure or within a
variation in the less sophisticated categories were present in the more sophisticated ones, the final outcome space was revised, with the second branch presented as a continuum rather than a nested hierarchy. The final outcome space is shown in figure three.
Figure 3: Final Outcome Space