|
| Step 1 | Preparation of the data
(i) Verbatim transcription of interview scripts
(ii) Typed hand-written field work notes onto a MS Word document
(iii) Created memos in ATLAS.ti, version 7 (qualitative analysis software programme)
(iv) Typed excerpts from medical and school records onto a word document |
|
| Step 2 | Organizing the case study database
(i) Uploaded and organized data from interview transcripts, field notes, and relevant documents onto ATLAS.ti, version 7 |
|
| Step 3 | Read an interview transcript, field notes, and document collected (e.g., interview transcript of learner 1, field notes of interview with learner 1, and the medical/school records of learner 1) |
|
| Step 4 | Open coding
(i) Took the interview transcript of learner 1 in case 1 and using ATLAS.ti, version 7 highlighted segments of data that were potentially relevant to answering the research question and added codes and comments |
|
| Step 5 | Axial coding
(i) After working through the entire transcript of learner 1, a code list was printed and manually checked for duplications, and codes were renamed, combined, or deleted
(ii) The codes were copied and pasted onto a word document
(iii) Grouped codes together that appeared to link, forming categories
(iv) A separate running list of categories was kept |
|
| Step 6 | Repeated steps 3-5 with the remaining sets of data in case 1 (i.e., interview transcripts and field notes of interviews with primary caregiver, teacher, and principal) whilst keeping in mind the previous lists of categories checking whether they were also present in the subsequent sets of data |
|
| Step 7 | The lists of categories of all the data sets in case 1 were compared |
|
| Step 8 | All the categories of all data sets in case 1 were merged onto one master list of categories
Those categories that held up across sets of data for case 1 were retained, some categories became subcategories, and others were subsumed. Categories were hence refined throughout the process of analysis. This list reflected the recurring regularities/patterns in the study that cut across all sets of data of case 1 |
|
| Step 9 | Steps 1-8 were repeated for each of the remaining cases (i.e., cases 2-8) |
|
| Step 10 | Cross-case analysis
(i) Each case’s main categories were examined to explore the similarities and differences amongst individuals and contexts. This assisted to determine shared factors that influence school reentry and participation and propose personal/contextual features that explain variations
(ii) Through a process of comparing and merging salient categories, the subcategories and categories that were consistent across cases were then grouped into themes resulting in a unified description of categories and themes across cases |
|
