NPT can help inform, guide or structure the way you
code and analysis your data. You could think
of it in a similar way to one of Glaser's (1, 2, 3) coding families, or
Strauss and Corbin's (4) single coding approach,
in that all the data can be coded against NPTs four core
constructs and the specific components.
Introduction
Coding and analysis is a craft. It involves a lot of time,
energy, patience and above all perseverance. Qualitative
researchers often use theory to inform coding and analysis. You can
use NPT in various ways to help you make sense of your data.
You have three main options open to you:
- Code your data directly via the headings of the various NPT
constructs and components.
- Code your data as you would normally, say via some version of
the constant comparison method, or some variant of thematic
analysis. Then group your codes under the various NPT
constructs and components.
- Code your data as you would normally, say via some version of
the constant comparison method, or some variant of thematic
analysis. Then re-code the data via the NPT constructs and
components. You can then compare your findings.
In relation to coding your data directly via the headings of the
various NPT core constructs and specific
components, let's look at a very brief example, taken from an
interview with a health practitioner discussing the referral
process between hospital departments. Here's a section of
un-coded transcript (See box A):
A. Un-coded Original
|
Health Practitioner: a lot of (pause) kind of
departments are somewhat obstructive when you are trying to pass
patients on to them and if you know someone it's a lot easier … a
lot of other departments would want you to do every test under the
sun, confirm a diagnosis and then they'll see them.
|
We could then code this passage drawing on the four constructs of NPT (See box
B).
B. Coding via NPT Constructs
|
Health Practitioner: a lot of
(pause) kind of departments are somewhat obstructive when you are
trying to pass patients on to them and if you know someone it's a
lot easier … a lot of other departments would want you to do every
test under the sun, confirm a diagnosis and then they'll see
them.
|
Collective action |
Clearly, in describing the referral process, this practitioner
is describing the practical work involved in making a referral, she
is describing aspects of the work that 'defines and
operationalizes' such referral work. In this case, the code
collective action seems
appropriate. However, if you just work with the constructs, you are going
to get quite a lot of data that's just fits into the four
areas. You end up having little detail in which to begin to
think analytically.
Another option is to drop down to coding at the level of
components (See box C).
C. Coding via NPT Components
|
Health Practitioner: a
lot of (pause) kind of departments are somewhat obstructive when
you are trying to pass patients on to them and if you know someone
it's a lot easier … a lot of other
departments would want you to do every test under the sun, confirm
a diagnosis and then they'll see them.
|
regional integration
skill-set workability
|
In this case two immediately come to mind - skill-set
workability - that a practitioner in order to enable a
referral must be competent in providing adequate and
accurate diagnostic reasoning and evidence offering just offering a
'hunch', alongside relational integration - in
that clearly getting a referral requires some form of
trust or ongoing relationship between the
referring practitioner and the department. Getting a
diagnosis wrong and so wasting another time has implications for
that practitioner's reputation and standing. All this has
implication for patient progression to suitable specialist
care.
So, coding this way, via various NPT constructs and components,
can enable you to begin to make sense of your data. However,
be aware that you can end up with a lot of large chunks of data
under NPT headings like 'relational
integration'. You will then have to critically
analysis and interpret the content and significance of data coded
under a given heading (like relational integration) in relation to
your aims, objectives, knowledge of the literature and so on.
Put simple, you will need to continue the analysis process by going
through these large chunks and then draw out the various
research-project specific issues at hand.
In relation to the other two options, let's look at an example
of initially coding the data via some form of more
traditional coding technique, say thematic analysis (5) or the first few processes
of the constant comparison method (6). Initially, you might begin with
some form of line-by-line, fine grained or in vivo coding (See Box
D).
D. Initial in vivo coding
Such a style of coding is often found when you initiate a
project, where you are trying to gain as much detail as
possible. You may start with such codes, they clearly report
what is going on in the referral process. After you
initial rounds of coding, you might have refined your codes
somewhat, so that you have more descriptive terms that reflect the
issues you found over the data set. For example, in as shown in Box
E (below), 'want you to do every test under the sun' is now part of
a broader descriptive code, that off 'diagnostic tests'.
|
Health Practitioner: a lot of (pause) kind
of departments are somewhat obstructive when you
are trying to pass patients on to them and if you know someone it's a lot easier … a
lot of other departments would want you to do
every test under the sun, confirm a diagnosis and then
they'll see them.
|
Obstructive when try and pass on
Knowing someone
Every test under the sun
|
E. Coding via Descriptive/Focused Coding
Once you developed these more generic, descriptive codes, these
can now be placed in the coding manual or coding sheets, or
outlined in a memo (7), and then related to the
relevant NPT core construct and
components. So for example, your code book (if you
use one) could look something like this (See box F):
|
Health Practitioner: a
lot of (pause) kind of departments are somewhat obstructive when
you are trying to pass patients on to them and if you know someone
it's a lot easier … a lot of other
departments would want you to do every test under the sun, confirm
a diagnosis and then they'll see them.
|
Past contacts
Diagnostic tests
|
F. Coding Sheet 1
| NPT |
Concept & Relevant Codes
|
Examples |
|
Concept 5: Referral Work
This concept covers the ways that referral are undertaken. It
outlines the local routines and practices around referral …
etc.
Code 5.1: Contacting departments
Code 5.2: 'Difficult' patients/family
…
|
|
|
Collective action • integration relational
|
Code 5.7: Past contacts
Descriptions of the role of how prior relationship with other
practitioners, be they negative or positive, be they from
encounters as students or colleagues, face-to-face or by reputation
alone, impact upon the referral process … etc.
|
'a lot of (pause) kind of departments are somewhat
obstructive when you are trying to pass patients on to them and if
you know someone it's a lot easier' (HP10: p7) |
|
Collective action • workability skill-set
|
Code 5.8: Diagnostic tests
Descriptions of the types and range of tests that practitioners
are required or expected to conduct. Includes the type of test that
practitioners think they should conduct as well those they are told
to conduct when contacting prospective department to refer to …
etc.
|
a lot of other departments would want you to do every test
under the sun, confirm a diagnosis and then they'll see them.'
(HP10: p7)
|
Or your code book (if you are using one) could look something
like this (See box G):
G. Coding Sheet 2
| Concept |
Collective
Action |
|
Interactional Workability
|
Skill-set Workability
|
Relational Integration
|
Contextual Integration
|
|
Referral Work
This concept covers the ways that referral are undertaken. It
outlines the local routines and practices around referral… etc.
|
'Difficult' patients/family
…
|
Diagnostic tests
The types and range of tests that practitioners are required
or expected to conduct impacts on the referral pathway. This
includes the type of test that practitioners think they should
conduct as well those they are told to conduct when contacting
prospective department to refer to … etc.
|
Past contacts
Prior relationship with other practitioners, be they negative
or positive, be they from encounters as students or colleagues,
face-to-face or by reputation alone, impact upon the referral
process … etc.
|
Contacting departments
…
|
The idea here is that you've started with your data - coded what
is relevant to your emerging data and your interests (boxes d and
e) - and then related those findings to NPT (boxes f and g).
In this way, especially with a large amount of data, you have a
good sense of the range of issues you find under the broader NPT
labels.
So why might such an approach be useful? If you wanted to
transform a specific aspect of referral for a specific disease, to
introduce a new referral pathway, it is not enough to say that we
need to address issues of 'relational integration'. Instead
you need to offer a much more practical, research site-specific
answer. In the example above, this practitioner informs us
that there are specific referral work practices, almost, a referral
'etiquette', 'ritual' or 'order', so if we want to instigate a new
referral procedure and we want it to normalize it, we would need to
be aware of this and work with it.
However you choose to code your data, do not always expect your
data to automatically fit nicely within the domains in the
theory.
- When you first use it, it will take you some time to
familiarise yourself with NPTs ideas, constructs and
components.
- You may often spend time debating about which specific area of
the theory that a specific section of data or code really belongs
to. That's not a problem and quite routine. Some
incident, situations or issues can fit within multiple area of the
theory. As with all qualitative analysis, as long as your
colleagues agree and you can defend your choice to others, that
fine.
- That your data makes sense within the theory is great, and that
the theory helps you think through your data is often enough.
The exact location of your data in the theory is less
important.
- Above all the theory is there for you to use, not to overly
control and constrain your thinking.
A PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF CODING
Q: How did NPT impact on your coding? What was it
like? How tough was it?
A: It was tough because we were not confident that we understood
the intended meaning of the models constructs. We learned a lot
about the constructs through an iterative process of coding and
interpretation, checking the resonance of the data with its
original meaning, our sense of its relevance to a particular
construct, debating its relevance to this rather than that NPT
construct etc etc. … I don't think it will be ever be so tough
again because we have a better sense of what the NPT is about
because we 'learned by doing'. This learning will transfer I am
sure to other NPT analyses
Q: Did discuss/debate how to code with/via NPT?
A: Yes, A LOT
Q: Did you come to an agreement about how to enact a
specific code?
A: We came to agreement through discussion and debate and asking
each other loads and loads of questions about our data, the model,
why we thought what we thought. Having the freedom to ask 'stupid
questions' of each was very important!
However you are using NPT to shape and inform your coding and
analysis, you need to be aware that certain topics, issues and
concerns will always fall outside the theory.
- Good analysis means openness to emergent issues. This will
generally mean that some issues that are relevant to your specific
project will fall outside the theory. That's fine, it's quite
routine and normal. You should never try and force data to
fit a theory.
- If you are doing some form of coding via NPT constructs
and components, you always need a code that is 'other', as in,
issues and topics that do not clearly fit within the NPT. For some
projects, where NPT is only a small part of the project, that might
be fine. However, when the ideas behind NPT are central to
your research project, and the 'other' code is getting large, or
many of your codes cannot be related to NPT, you need to ask
various questions of the research project.
- Are the things being coded as 'other' central to answering your
research questions? Is NPT really helping you? Should
you be using another theory instead which helps you make sense of
more of your data? Are you being too rigid in the way you
operationalize the theory?
- Are you asking the right questions to the right people?
Are you observing the right sites? Should you consider
going back into the field to collect more data?
Things to consider
- To test out how useful NPT might be for you, think about doing
a two stage analysis. First via a traditional method, then via NPT
constructs and components.
Then compare them. It may seem like a lot of work, but you
know your data and it will force you out of some of the assumptions
that you made the first-time around. You do not have to do it
on your whole data set.
- As with all qualitative research, work in a group, compare your
coding, discuss your thoughts, refine (again and again) your coding
frame/manual/book.
References
- Glaser
BG. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of
Grounded Theory. Sociology Press. Back to text
- Glaser,
B.G. (1998) Doing Grounded Theory - Issues and Discussions. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Back to text
- Glaser,
B.G. (2005) The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical
coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Back to text
- Strauss, A. & Corbin,
J.M. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Back to text
- Braun, V. & Clarke, V.
(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology. 3: 77-101. Back to text
- Glaser,
B (1965) The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis.
Social Problems, 12: 436-445. Back to text
- Miles, M.B., & Huberman,
A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd edn.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Back to text