In order to analyse the data we have collected we have to code it. We have chosen to use a conventional content analysis to code and analyse our findings, and we will use an
inductive and deductive analysing approach. This will allow us to identify themes and concepts from our primary research. As well as keep the themes of already presented theories. This is corresponding with the conventional content analysis approach, as we are identifying codes and categories from our primary research and therefore we feel that these two approaches should go hand in hand. And as we want to briefly explore the possibility for grounded theory analysis or at least, theory extension, we believe that these approaches would be the most beneficial for the job.
When we started with the coding process, we chose to follow Zhang & Wildemuth (2009) guideline on how to code qualitative data by follow the 8 steps they presented;
1. Prepare the data.
2. Define the unit of analysis.
3. Develop categories and a coding scheme.
4. Test your coding scheme on a sample of text.
5. Code all the text.
6. Assess your coding consistency.
7. Draw conclusions from the coded data.
8. Report your methods and findings.
It started out with step 1, preparing the data. This step looks at how we should transcribe our interviews. Which questions should be transcribed? Should it be written down word for word or as a summary? Do we include observations we had during the interview? Here we decided to transcribe all the answers, word for word, that the participants gave, but did not include probes from the interviewer, only the main questions were written down to make it easier to read/follow. We did not include any observations into the transcripts. When we conducted the interviews there where a lot of building work taking place outside the building and it could be heard on the tape recording, we believe that this could have taken a lot of time to write up every time there was an outside noise. It was also identified that a few participants laughed a lot and this would also have taken up a lot of time to transcribe and we do not see it relevant to the answers given. Zhang & Wildemuth (2009) goes on to explain step 2 on how to define the unit of analysis. We have chosen to interpret this as the basis material we will be using to code and then analyse. And we have selected to include all the primary data we have. We believe that with only 13 participants and with just under 3 hours’ worth of interviews, we need to include it all and it is all relevant. Step 3 is about developing coding categories and schemes (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009). In order to develop categories and a coding scheme, we used one randomly selected interview transcript and considered what categories, sub-categories and codes to use, that would describe the findings best. We came up with 7 categories and identified sub-categories for the three first categories and then codes. The last 4 categories do not have any
sub-categories or codes as we feel it would be too sporadic and will not benefit us, however the main findings will be presented in a short summary before the quotations will be presented.
We did step 4 – 6 somewhat simultaneously. We identified between words or phrases that were used repeatedly and this became the code in all 13 interviews. The category was developed from what the question wanted to describe and the sub-categories was
developed to describe the category a bit further. Then examples and definitions were found /developed for the whole scheme. We encountered some inconsistencies on our initial scheme and this was changed in order to best suit our primary data. For instant we had codes made for question 4, 5 and 6 however when we read the transcripts again and did another check on the text and compared it to each other we identified that it was not working with coding these questions and would therefore only do a short summary on the findings. Question 4 had the codes PhD students, permanent employees and external projects, however after rereading the transcript it did not feel right to use a code on this question due to the limited quotations we have. We did the same for question 5 and 6, we made the codes, less, more, no change and for question 6 added maybe. However due to the restricted quotations we felt that it would not be appropriate to use the codes. Question 7 was added after the first few interviews when it was highlighted that climate change would not be mentioned by the participants at their own will. We also added questions regarding climate change and behavioural change in the future. This was done in order to evaluate if climate change would play a part in their personal travel behaviour and if they would change this behaviour. Step 7 and 8 will be included in the main discussion part with relation to theory in chapter 5.