Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Research II: Qualitative Data Analysis 0130242

Collect some data using one or more qualitative methods, for example semi- structured interviewing, participant observation, or discourse analysis. Analyse the data you have collected, demonstrating how you established coding rules,and developed categories and themes. What have you learned about data analysis in this exercise?

“Unifying ideas analytically” (Charmaz, 2006:71)From describing to analysing data

In this essay,I reflect upon my codingof segments from three semi-structuredinterviewsand the process of constructing categories, using a Grounded Theoryapproach. Iremain close to the chronologyof my research,as I reflect upon theframework for my micro-and macro-analysis. My approachisshownto besystematic, not formulaic (Charmaz, 2006), with three themes emergingfrom myreflection on the process. These are key themes which may be relevant to theemerging researcher who is considering using a Grounded Theory methodology.This examination of my analysis will show that relationships, roles, and routes,should be engaged with and ‘sketched out’ prior to analysing data.Firstly,by reflectingupon the shifting rolesofthe interviewees andmyself asresearcher,I highlightissues around the process of analysis and my ideal thatGrounded Theory methodology would lead to the co-construction of categories.How one becomes sensitised and subsequently acts upon these categoriesiscentral to the extent to which relationships and power may shift. Secondly, Iexamine the implications of my decision to writememos instead of carrying outaxial coding when constructinginitial categories. I show how this part of theprocess needed to be, like the categories, under continual review inlight of

changing relationships, contexts and fresh data. Thirdly, validity and reliabilitywereaimed forthrough the establishment of a systematic audit trail, unique tothe research context. However the usefulness and relevance of this trail isquestioned as I idealised the construction of knowledge

with

researchparticipants; participants who did not have access to significant partsof the trail.Igo on toproblematise the involvement of interviewees who, during the follow-upconversation, movedtowardsthe role of collaborator rather than interviewee orparticipant. Before explaining my Grounded Theory approach, I provide somebackground on how data was sampled.The edonis project commenced in October 2008with over one hundredparticipants and aresearchwebsite thatencouraged: free communication; thesharing of self-published online artifacts; and regular publishing of qualitativedata, that is, semi-structuredinterviews where the intervieweestalkedabout theirengagement with the ‘social web’. I made the assumptionthat the ‘social web’will visibly continueto grow and change, and aimed to construct a new analyticalframework withparticipants; one which would be constantly revisable. Researchparticipants were sought from three broad areas: educators who werenot usingthe‘social web’; educators who made limited use of this; and educators whomade regular use. The delineation of each of these types of use of the ‘socialweb’ was similar to the division of use byeducatorsin three fields of educationwith which I was familiar,and from where I sought participants. These fieldswere: residential schools (not using the ‘social web’), Chartered Teachers (limiteduse), and education ‘bloggers’ (regular use).I recognised during the pilotphase of the edonis project that three consecutiveinterviews had been arrangedwith educators who had indicated, and I was ableto verify, that they were experienced in the substantive area of professionalaction, namely the use of the ‘social web’ within education. These wereparticipants who had used recent developments in information andcommunication technologies(ICT) to share aspects of their educational life with

other educators. I identified them as having a voice online and had readofthempreviously mentioning the term PLN (widely regarded as standing for ‘personallearning network’), which I had takenan interest in. Having sampled from theedonis participants, I now briefly explore why I selected a Grounded Theorymethodology. I concludethat beingvisibly reflexivecommunicatedtoparticipants that a new framework wasbeing constructed during the process andthat, as an interpretivist researcher, my role waswithin a collaborative process,albeit one whereI wasrecognised as being more skilled in the methodology thanthe participants.I initially considered using critical discourse analysis (CDA),asI had invitedtheintervieweesto suggest what actions they attributedvalue to, believing that Icould have identifiedpowerful and concealedassumptions. Analysis of this kindwould have beenproblematichowever, as I hadnot attempted to reconcilemyroles and power relations throughoutmy research activities. I recognised that myvoice, assumptions, actions and interactions,contributed to the nature andcontent of each interview,and power relations within it. These would haveinfluenced the interviewees’ talk. This may have beenunavoidable to a degree;however I considered that a visibly reflexive approach was necessary to showthat:a disinterested stance was sought; an individual’s feelings and experienceswere not elevated as typical of the sample; and data could be abstracted.Thisinterpretivist approach recognisedmyideal in this project;that theparticipants and I werejointly constructing a new analytical framework. However,engaging with this approachhighlightswhere the literature problematiseGrounded Theory, for example when the categories become distantfrom dataand susceptible to the interpreted personal experiencesof the researcherorparticipants. Grounded Theory gives the researcher the role of interpreting datain from of them, however later I explore how I dilutedmy responsibility for aperiod of time, where I trustedthe participants to become collaborators during thefollow-up conversation. Initially though, the interviewees were‘sidelined’in the