CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING THE CASE STUDY: REACHING THE VOICES OF
4.6 Section 4: Data analysis
4.6.1 Level 1 analysis: Analysis of qualitative questionnaires, focus group
Level 1 constituted the transcription of the qualitative questionnaires, focus group discussions and critical individual conversations, and the identification of themes.
The translation of the focus group discussions and of the critical individual conversations was also done at this level. The first step of the analysis was to transcribe the data of the qualitative questionnaires followed by the translation and transcription of the focus group discussions and critical individual conversations.
This process involved several steps, as the transcription process was not a mere exercise. The transcription and translation process were done immediately after each fieldwork session. According to Bamberg (2012, p. 54), data analysis starts when the
researcher embraces the reflective posture of indwelling in the recordings of interviews to immerse ourselves in the data.
4.6.1.1 Translating the focus group discussions and the critical individual conversations
The focus group discussions and critical individual conversations were conducted in Kreol Morisien, as it is the mother tongue of most Mauritians and it was easier to capture quality data in the language in which the participants were more at ease.
Translation from Kreol Morisien to English was tedious work, as I had to adhere to the ‘grafi larmoni’ which is a harmonised writing system for the Mauritian Creole Language and which I am not used to. Kreol Morisien was recognised as an official language in 2004. While doing the translation in Kreol Morisien, I had to consult the dictionary for the Mauritian Kreole Morisien - Diksioner Morisien (Carpooran, 2009), to adhere to the correct grammar and writing of words. Sometimes, it was difficult to find the exact translation of some Kreol Morisien expressions that the participants used in the focus group discussions and in the critical individual conversations. In some cases, it was also challenging to find the exact matches of some expressions used by the participants, since cultural notions are not always easily conveyed to audiences who are unfamiliar with these. Some examples were
“pren nissa”, “serye net”, “batiara” and “di fé”. To demonstrate an example of an expression in Kreol Morisien and its meaning in English, an extract from focus group discussion 3 with Mia is provided in Appendix 9.
4.6.1.2 Transcribing the qualitative questionnaires, focus group discussions and critical individual conversations
The transcription of the three methods of data production was therefore conducted in Microsoft Excel in three stages. Firstly, initial analysis took place to find out the main concerns and themes emerging from the data. I read all the answers to the questions in each method of data production carefully and input each answer for each question separately for each participant to get a sense of the emergent fields separately for each method of data production.
4.6.1.3 Analysis of the qualitative questionnaires, focus group discussions and critical individual conversations
The themes started to emerge from the data. I read all the answers to the questions of each data production method and input each answer for each question separately for each participant to get an idea of the transcription. I started to determine patterns, processes, commonalities, and differences. I became conversant with them, distinguished remarkable patterns, searching for the fundamental meaning and wrote the themes (which I deemed were emerging from the answers) in a column together with the raw data. Themes and main issues were pulled out from the data of each method of data production. The themes were classified for the raw data of each method of data production for each participant, which involved grouping the data into themes for analysis of specific events and ideas. These themes were not permanent as new understanding emerged during the analysis process. Themes were used not only to simplify or reduce the data but also to open and interrogate them further and formulate new questions and levels in the interpretations. I set out to discover patterns, processes, commonalities, and differences. An extract from focus group discussion 3 and Salima’s critical individual conversation is provided in Appendix 10, to demonstrate the similarity between focus group discussion 3 and Salima’s critical individual conversation.
I had to know from the women how they experienced their learning at university, about their relationships with academic teaching staff and peers, and with the curriculum and how these affected learning experiences. Only some parts of the data were translated from Kreol Morisien into English; the data was then analysed after translation. A thematic analysis was done by frequently going through the whole data set to be able to identity patterns of meanings. Different codes were produced whereby potential themes were recognised. Themes were further defined and refined in relation to the entire data set. Thematic analysis identified commonalities and differences in qualitative data, before concentrating on connections between them.
In the first stage of critical individual conversation, it was found that the data provided by Emily was rather thin. Her responses did not bring any new component to what other participants had said in their critical individual conversations; they were like those of the other 5 participants, namely, Emma, Nisha, Salima, Olivia and
Mia. Although the critical individual conversation was conducted with Emily, since no new component was reported in her responses, I chose not to include Emily’s case in the presentation of the findings. All elements in her responses had already been captured in those of the others. Thus, the findings are presented for only 5 participants, namely, Emma, Nisha, Salima, Olivia and Mia.