114 The cycles incorporated the two forms of theory, focal theory and instrumental theory, as Davison et al. (2012) proposed. Both forms of theories were applied to the action research phases of planning (diagnosis and action planning), observing (evaluation) and reflecting (reflection). Focal theories provided the intellectual basis for the acting phase (intervention).
Instrumental theories were used to explain phenomena, including supporting the focal theories. In the current study, focal theories included the reflective practices of Schön (1983) and Van Manen (1992). Instrumental theory (TEUQ) was inductively generated from the research data in the action research cycles. TEUQ is the acronym for undertaking tasks, applying effort, increasing understanding and pursuing quality mechanisms generated from the thematic analysis process.
115 stated aim of Braun and Clarke (2006) was to provide an adequate outline of the theory, application, and evaluation of thematic analysis in an accessible manner.
Clarke and Braun (2013, p. 120) describe thematic analysis as an “analytic method, rather than a methodology”. Over the past decade and a half, Braun and Clarke (2006, 2012, 2013, 2019) have undertaken extensive work on thematic analysis. They consider the six-phase process from their seminal 2006 paper to be persistently valid (Braun & Clarke, 2019), and, consequently, it was followed in this study. Thematic analysis is suitable for a breadth of research studies. It supports a range of research questions, can analyse multiple forms of data, and handle large or small data sets producing either data-driven or theory-driven analyses (Clarke & Braun, 2013). Reflexive thematic analysis reflexively identifies themes (Braun & Clarke, 2019) that can be likened to generative mechanisms (Bhaskar, 2008; Heeks et al., 2019). Initially, Braun and Clarke considered a theme to be nothing more than a theme that provided a theoretical construct which they state as “[t]hemes are themes” (Braun &
Clarke, 2019, p. 593). Over the years, they revised their view to differentiate themes between simple domain summaries and patterns of shared meaning underpinned by a central meaning-based concept (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Patterns of shared meanings resonate with generative mechanisms, which are augmented by reframing the initial themes from
“emerging” from the data to “being generated” by the researcher (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p.
593). This should not be confused with the generative mechanisms nor emergence in critical realism. The description of generating initial themes by Braun and Clarke (2019) relates to abduction, whereby plausible mechanisms are conjectured from theory and data (Heeks et al., 2019).
The six phases of thematic analysis, depicted in Table 4.2, are presented linearly but were performed iteratively (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The phases begin with familiarisation with the data with initial codes generated for interesting features during the second phase. Phase three collates the generated codes into groupings for initial themes. The themes in this study were identified as generative mechanisms (Bhaskar, 2008) for learning. In phase four, the themes are reviewed, and links between themes are identified. In phase five, themes are iteratively refined in terms of the initial codes and codes' grouping. The iterative cycle of action research integrates with phase five iterations and encourages robust refining of themes. The final phase provides guidelines for producing the research report.
116 Phase three applied an abductive approach, and phase four used retroduction to inductively generate the generative mechanisms (Elder-Vass, 2007).
Table 4.2 Phases of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Phase Description of the process
1. Familiarising yourself with your data
Transcribing data, reading and re-reading the data, noting down initial ideas.
2. Generating initial codes Coding interesting features of the data in a
systematic fashion across the entire data set, collating data relevant to each code.
3. Searching for themes Collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data relevant to each potential theme.
4. Reviewing themes Checking in the themes work in relation to the coded extracts (Level 1) and the entire data set (Level 2), generating a thematic “map” of the analysis.
5. Defining and naming themes
Ongoing analysis to refine the specifics of each theme and the overall story the analysis tells, generating clear definitions and names for each theme.
6. Producing the report The final opportunity for analysis. Selection of vivid, compelling extract examples, final analysis of selected extracts, relating the analysis back to the research question and literature, producing a scholarly report of the analysis.
Reflexive thematic analysis was used for each action research cycle and identified a set of learning influence generative mechanisms to answer the first research question. The second research question sought a pragmatic solution derived through an abductive process. During the identification of the most significant generative mechanism (effort), there was evidence of overlap with the other generative mechanisms (task, understanding and quality).
Deductive thematic analysis was used to reanalyse the effort generative mechanism using the codes from the qualitative phase to consider the impact of effort on learning reflexively. The review outcome was linked to the depth of knowledge model of Webb (2002) to determine potential assessment links. The two-fold aim was to identify the significant mechanism effort's breadth and depth in line with Webb (2002) and Coker et al. (2017).
Thematic analysis was used to reanalyse the four action research cycles' consolidated findings using a two-phase approach. The first phase did a straightforward search for the word “effort”
and highlighted every instance of the word by changing its font to uppercase, increasing the font size and changing the font colour to amber. The findings were then re-read to find any
117 areas that the students considered effort but did not use the word effort in, such as “work”,
“difficult”, “struggle”, “try”, and alternatives of these words, for example, “tried”. All student reflections containing these words were imported into a Microsoft Word document and annotated with the cycle and team codes. Each paragraph in the new document was analysed for completeness, and superfluous sentences were deleted. Where paragraphs did not provide enough information for analysis, as students often reflected in a disjointed manner, data surrounding the references were added to the new document. The document was then re-read to identify and codify factors that may be considered as drivers of effort. These codes were then categorised and organised into themes.