To supplement the minimal details supplied by El-Sawad (2005) on her analytical framework, the current study has combined the method described by Schmitt (2005) to provide a more in-depth account of metaphor analysis. The analysis adopted by El- Sawad (2005) is explained as follows "each interview account was fully transcribed and a process of open coding conducted with each transcript being studied - word by word, line by line - for metaphors. After several iterations of this process, the metaphors generated by participants that shared similar properties and themes were grouped together" (p. 26).
Schmitt (2005) identifies five stages of metaphor analysis. Firstly, the target area for metaphor analysis needs to be identified; this is where the research topic and
questions are determined and a draft for the survey and evaluation needs to be planned. Secondly, wide and unsystematic arrays of metaphors are collected. To prepare for this stage a wide range of metaphors associated with the topic should be researched which is partly due to the fact that metaphor analysis only provides
incomplete and indirect answers to questions. As previously noted, metaphor analysis relies heavily on previous knowledge with the area being researched, such as
familiarity with the language and the environment under investigation. In support of this, Reynolds (1989) suggests that since metaphor analysis is described as a
hermeneutic process, it depends on the way that the text is interpreted. This means that metaphor analysis is a subjective process that is influenced by various factors.
The third stage is divided into two steps and concerns the systematic analysis of the sub-group. Step one involves the identification of metaphors that are then divided into different parts of texts; step two is where the collective metaphorical models are synthesised. In order to identify metaphors which occurs in step one, Schmitt's (2005) offers the following three points that can be used:
• A word or phrase is understood beyond the literal meaning in the context;
• The literal meaning originates from a sensory or cultural experience (source domain);
• This is transferred to a second, abstract area (target domain).
Schmitt (2005) suggests that it makes sense to copy the metaphors identified from the target domain and paste them onto a separate list. The remainder of the document is then scanned for other metaphors until only the connecting words, words that are irrelevant to the target domain, and abstracts that have no association to the metaphors are left behind. The second step of this stage aims to group metaphors together that share the same source and target domains under a heading. This should be repeated until all the metaphors are listed under a concept, but Schmitt (2005) cautions researchers to avoid forming one large encompassing metaphor to describe a set of metaphors as this results in over-interpretation. This stage is captured by Schmitt's (2005, p. 373) extract: "the reconstruction of metaphorical concepts, for which Lakoff and Johnson do not formulate any rules, is more open to subjective influences than the identification of metaphors".
The fourth stage involves the comparison of metaphorical concepts where concepts
are compared across different actions and experiences in the attempt to understand the context from which the metaphors are from, before making any conclusions. This stage requires patience as the source and target domains are considered again and undergo reworking until the best fit is found. Lastly, metaphor models are
retranslated to understand the world we live in and this is where sub-divisions and values become clear.
The current study's method of analysis, as discussed below, is a 'combined approach' developed by the researcher to analyse the data. Four steps were followed in the current study:
Step one. Once the interview was completed it was transcribed in full. As Terre
Blanche and Kelly (1999) argue it is important to transcribe everything in interpretive methods, rather than deciding what data is relevant or not. This enabled the
researcher to rethink the narratives that had been collected and generate approaches for the next participant's interview. This served as a beneficial process through which built-in-blind spots could be rectified, and ensured that the analysis remained a
continual and vigorous process (Miles & Huberman, 1991). The analysis of the results began during the interview and transcription process where the researcher was already vigilant for emerging metaphors.
Step two. Key words and descriptions that combine to form a metaphor as well as
more direct metaphors were loosely identified (using different colour pens and
highlighters) in the transcriptions. Here the process was directed by the metaphors
identified by El-Sawad (2005) in her study. In this way, the researcher was vigilant
for the same metaphors identified by El-Sawad (2005), but also for newly generated
metaphors. The researcher wishes to highlight that in most cases people will not use
direct metaphors when discussing their careers, but will rather use certain words
and/or terms that collectively generate a particular metaphor. So for example, a
participant may not state that their career is like a garden, full of flowers struggling to
grow. Metaphors very rarely emerge in such a direct way, but are rather generated
through the use of related terms like "stunted growth' or "pruning", which
collectively construct a metaphor. This will become more evident on reading the analysis of the results of the current study.
An attempt was made to keep the process of identifying metaphors an open and creative process where no conclusions regarding the metaphors were drawn yet. This is in line with the recommendation made by Miles and Huberman (1991) that
metaphor-makers should not conclusively decide on metaphors too early in the
process. The transcripts were scanned for metaphors until only connecting words, and abstracts that had no association to the metaphors were left behind. This was a
lengthy process as multiple readings were needed to ensure that no metaphors were overlooked. This also minimised the error of overlooking some metaphors (Morgan, 1986). The researcher frequently shared her findings with her supervisor to generate further ideas and contribute a different perspective to the analysis process.
Step three involved grouping metaphors together that shared a theme. This was done until all the metaphors were ascribed to either. El-Sawad's (2005) 'established' and
'disciplinary' metaphor categories, or to the 'new disciplinary' category where metaphors specific to this group were placed. It was at this stage of the process that the themes were re-worked and re-considered a number of times with the help of relevant literature.
Step four. Once the researcher was content with the metaphors that were categorised into themes; the metaphors were tested to see whether they still made sense if they were taken back to their original texts (transcripts) and in their entirety as new
themes. If this was the case, the process ended otherwise this continued until the best fit was found, or sometimes the metaphor was discarded if it was weak or did not add to the exploration of the participant's career. According to Miles and Huberman (1991) the generating of metaphors should not be exhausted; this means that a time will arrive when enough metaphors have been extracted from the data, and the researcher should respect this point and stop generating metaphors once it has been reached. The metaphors were then interpreted with the research aims and questions in mind. This process was aided by reading extensively around the different metaphors generated. For example, the military metaphor could not have been explored in detail