 Miamentd rhai o gwneudio gwineidio'r newid dewis gwneudio. Pan lleιαf am y gwneudio gwneudio gwneudio, ydych chi'n ein cyflwytoedd gynhyrchiol wedi nhw'n wneudio'r gwneudio gwneudio. Center o ddechrau yn ei gwneudio gwneudio gwneudio gwneudio, sy'n dod ein gwneudio gwneudio gwneudio cael llwyddi, mewn gwneudio gwneudio gwneudio... Maen nhw'n cech yn gwneudio ar gyfer y bwysig o gwneudio'r gwneudio... Pan lleiaf yng nghylch am gwneudio gwneudio gwneudio... bwysiglwch cyfnod i chi bastygol i gynnig o gyflasu a gynnigon gyda ni, felly mae Cael newsiad cyfliadwr cyrraedd. Felly, rwyf i fynd bod yn ôl adroddi, mae'n gynhyrch i'r holl bwysiglwch. Felly, mae ydych chi eich maesunion dythyniaeth? Felly mae'n go则 peth ddod gyda'r cyfliadau raddiol, ac mae eich cyfliadau fflusiwydd yn y�ent yn rhan dechreu i fi, אwn i'r ffrwsgol i'r cyfliadau ar gyfer alon rhan o gwybodach ac i'r ffrwsgol ydych chi'n gweld y gwirionedd a'r ambrilladau yng Nghymru. Felly, mae'r hyn o'r ffrindiau ar gyfer y dda, byddwch yn 1999, ac mae'n dweud i'r gweithio a'r gweithio ar y gweithio ar y gweithio. Ond mae'n cael ei wneud o'r ffrindiau ar gyfer y gweithio ar gyfer y gweithio ar gyfer y gweithio. Mae'n ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r gweithio, ond mae'r rhydw i gael eu lleguidaeth o aramosio ar gyfer y gweithio a Bydwr nwyl yn cael ei rai willegu ymgweithio. Ond mae'r cyjaeth ar ddysgu, mae'n ddiweddar o'i roi hynny yn gweithio convenience ddau sydd y codiad ymgoelio morningu. Fwyl i'r gweithio anodd y rai sydd ddim yn cyfreinnoad rei yny, ond eu bobl amdano, rydyn ni'n fryd iawn. Felly mae'r sefydliadau iddyn nhw wedi bod y'r codiadau a'r hefyd yn mynd, holl o gael o'r cyd-rhyw modifieddau a'r teimlo. Felly mae'r sefydliadau sydd wedi bod yn ddannya Яwgwll, ond mae'r cerddur iawn o'r teimlo, byddai'r gyfŵr y gallwn cynnig hefyd, allan y cyfnod a cynnig? Ie, os gallwch i beth y bobl o'r seffariol arweithio. Fy hollum amweithio iawn i'r cyervered y ddweud. Nid oed yn gweld hynny o'r cwysgol. Nid oed yn wedi'u gwneud os gallwch i'r cyervered y ddweud. Mae'r pas oedd mae'n brif yn fawr i'r corff mwy iddo, a'r allan o'r z сеfydli'r emwy, os gallwn gweld hyn iawn, oedd gennych o'r newydd yno. O'r gwneud o'r llwyfo a'r caswb yn gwneud, o'r acaddiant o gaelwch i gaelwch gyda'r gyfnodau. Felly, mae'n gwneud bod ni wedi'u gweld ymddiolion o'r ymddiolion yw'n cael ei wneud. Yn ddweud â'r cyflwyno i'w gaelwch am ymddiolion i gaelwch am ymddiolion sy'n bywyd yn ymgyrch, oedd ymddangos y cyflwyno i'r cyflwyno i'r cyflwyno i gaelwch, ac mae'r warchbethau ar gyfer gweithredu ddefnyddiowch, cyflygwch cyflygiau i ddefnyddio eu cefnodau newydd. Oeidwch gennym dweud cyfenseinol o hyd o'r rhan o'r mynd i g relaxedio. Yn ceisio bod oedd cyfanyddio, oes bod yn gofynnau eu bod yna'r busur. Ond rydyn ni'n rhoi'r cerddoedd o'r ddod o'r codiwn o'r anhygoel o'r codiwn, wedi'i rhaglen o'r rhaid o'r ddaeth gweithreithio ynghylch, a ddweudio'n ddiddordeb sy'n ddiddordeb yn gweithreithio'n ddiddordeb sy'n ddiddordeb ynghylch. Mae'r ddiddordeb y gweithreithio ac sy'n ddiddordeb sy'n ddiddordeb. We'll talk about that more in a minute. But it's basically, there are multiple iterations in most kinds of grounded theory when you come to the analysis process and that means starting out looking at the data, looking for very, simple and basic patterns and trends and then extrapolating those looking at them more holistically and building up wider themes which connect better to the theory. ac we'n mynd i'n gweithio'r ffordd o'r hyn yn ymwneud, a'r ffordd o'r hyn yn ymwneud. Felly, y mwyn i'n gweld i'r ffordd yw'r cyffredinol cyllid CGT, y ffordd gwneud y ffordd gwneud. Ac mae'n ffordd o'r cyffredinol yw'r cyffredinol cyllid CGT, ac efallai, Gleiswyr ac Straffsen. Fe ddod â bod yn ysgrifedd yma yng nghymru sydd wedi eu cyfnod mewn ddwylliannol bobl. Mae'r ddweud yn y 60-er. Felly, mae'r idea er mwyn i ddim yn gweithio'r gennaeth erioed. Felly, mae'n ei gydig o'r ddwylliannol o'r ddwylliannol o'r ddwylliannol, ac mae'n ddwylliannol o'r ddwylliannol o'r ddwylliannol, is in this article there's a very kind of strong, sorry a book, there's a very kind of strong focus on everything being data, even field notes. And field notes being a very important part of using that to generate your codes and theory. And the analysis process that they describe goes from looking at substantive theory, so substantive coding to then build on later to theoretical coding. So it's quite similar to that pattern again starting off with kind of small basic easy simple codes and then later on building them and pulling them together to build something larger. So that would be a very kind of rough guide to classical grounded theory. The question here is have you already done a literature review because there's a lot of discussion between the different types of grounded theory as to whether doing literature review and whether bringing in the literature especially at the early stages of your research project is kind of providing, it's kind of breaking ground theory because it's giving you kind of preconceived ideas about what's already out there in the literature and other theories. So you're not kind of developing your own from scratch. Some of the papers argue if you've already done a literature review and often that's a prerequisite at a certain stage of people's PhD or writing a thesis that a literature review is one of the first things that you do and you write and show those chapters to your supervisors. So there's an argument that that means that you probably shouldn't do classical grounded theory because it would argue that while you do want to look at the literature you want to look at that kind of after you've had to look at your data and after you've tried to generate some of those themes other people would argue about that interpretation but that seems to be a kind of broad brush approach. So we'll then look at the Astrosian modified grounded theory which comes out with Astros and Corbyn paper from 1990 many many others since then and this is quite a similar approach in many ways. It's slightly more kind of prescriptive of its kind of steps but it does argue that you can use pre-existing literature and look at pre-existing theories kind of early on in the process not necessarily before you start but at least quite early on in the process. Now that also doesn't talk so much about codes and themes it talks about concepts and categories. The definition for those are slightly different but they kind of amalgamus and their approach for doing the coding they talk about what's become a very common approach which is the kind of open and axial coding. The open coding being you're open to interpretation so going through and creating those very basic simple first codes and then the axial process where you're kind of connecting those together and then from that selective coding which is where you kind of start building the theory from those open themes which have been grouped together in an axial process. So there's a very kind of crude way to describe it but that's the kind of approach which the kind of modified grounded theory is suggesting and then after that you'll find the constructivist grounded theory so Kathy Chalmers was the big proponent of this she died very sadly quite recently but she's a wonderful woman and if you want to see any of her talks or read any of her papers they're great and I think one of the reasons that constructivist grounded theory has become so popular is she's got a very good kind of ground down-to-earth approach and her writing is very clear and fun and easy to engage with and talks as well so with constructivist grounded theory you can also start with the literature if you want to in fact that's kind of encouraged there's probably more of a reference to recognising the role that the researcher has and the researchers bias in creating these codes. The constructivist approach says that you're not really kind of discovering themes in the data we'll talk about this a bit in a minute but recognising that the researcher is constructing them and that's become quite a big kind of argument in the epistemological kind of side of these arguments recently we'll see that as well so what it's saying is that reflexivity is a very important part of that because you want to acknowledge that it's not just the data speaking to an empty plate you already have ideas in your head you already have things that you're going to be interested in finding in the data your own positionality your own experiences your own kind of biases and prejudices or privileges are going to come out in that process so again it's kind of rejecting a very kind of positivistic approach from the kind of very very classical grounded theory where you're saying the researcher is just a neutral party just digging and finding things in the data in constructivist grounded theory the the terms are different but the process is quite similar to the modified grounded theory so you talk first about open coding again and then for time as it becomes focused coding and then from that to theoretical coding again those processes differ slightly in their aims but are quite kind of a similar kind of again a kind of three stage multi iterative process but there are many other forms of grounded theory more than we have time to talk about today because I want to kind of focus on the practical illustration of that there's also feminist grounded theory which uses not just kind of feminist method but for feminist kind of epistemology there's postmodern approaches to grounded theory and there's also things like discursive grounded theory so combinations with other kind of methods of analysis looking at words and discourse and the context of discourse which kind of give it a different spin but it's also very possible to kind of create your own kind of modified grounded theory to take some elements justify why you want to use certain of them because of your epistemological stances and your ontological stances and build something which works for your research questions your research project and the kind of theory building that you want to do so one of the questions that I often get asked is is how grounded theory is different from some of the other and analytical approaches out there and where it's obviously very different to framework analysis where you've got those codes you've got that coding structure you've got your theories kind of ahead of time the basics of the approach you'll see in a lot of other types of analysis so reflexive thematic analysis that's probably one of the most popular qualitative analysis methods which is is used at the moment you'll find a lot of commonalities with grounded theory in that again the idea is to create new codes and themes from the data not to start with too much kind of pre-existing concepts but also to be very reflexive about it so that kind of connects to the constructivist grounded theory argument again and then you have content analysis again some methods of content analysis some content analysis is does have a priority kind of coding framework and some of it is about creating codes on the fly as you go along so that also have commonalities in approaches and then IPA so interpretive phenomenological analysis although what you're looking for and the theoretical concepts are quite different there some of the kind of structures and processes can be quite similar so IPA will take a line by line approach so looking at each line each kind of sentence and trying to find kind of ways to summarise or describe that sometimes even in using the participants own words in in vivo coding and so there although there is this kind of approach on kind of creating first um then this also quickly gets kind of maps on to kind of codes and themes and so on and that's that the process of kind of creating these from scratch does make it feel quite similar to grounded theory again there are commonalities so do have a look at the different aspects the different and that analytical approaches which are out there um see which ones you understand best which fit your models best um and don't be too um don't get too far down the rabbit hole is is one of the cautions that that I usually make about this there's a lot of debate in the literature about the semantics of how these different things are applied um some of these are important and some of these are not and it's important to know that there's I would argue quite a lot of posturing going on about describing particular things as being very different to very others that may be true um from certain ontological approaches um but for many people the practicalities of of doing it and the outcomes will be quite similar so understand your differences um don't be afraid to have a kind of blended approach as long as it's something that you understand well enough to justify why you've chosen to do that so this is a very brief overview of some of the different um grounded theory approaches you can read a lot more um in the blog post which I'll put in the links below which tries to give these kind of summaries um and that also references these these um two two papers which I think are really good places to start so the grounded grounding grounding grounded theory by day 1999 is really fun um it's an easy read um it's quite engaging um and that gives you a kind of a good overview as well um there's also an article which is um freely accessible as well and novice researchers walk first walk through the maze of grounded theory that's evans 2013 um and that's just kind of a a summary kind of through their own journey um choosing classical grounded theory but doing quite a good job at kind of describing some of the differences between the different grounded theory approaches as they go along so I'd encourage people who are taking this seriously um not to just rely on some random guys youtube video to to decide this very important part of their research process but go back and read the proper sources read the right literature um and then come to your own conclusions and decisions about what's the right method of analysis for you so this is something which is uh become quite a big kind of uh topic in in the literature recently um this there's been a bit of a backlash against the the term themes emerge from the data um why is that well partly this is a um an acknowledgement of the importance of the reflexivity in the process and that some of the literature and some research when it's describing themes as just emerging from the data is kind of implying this very kind of positivistic stance where things are just there to be discovered and the researchers own biases and influences don't have a rolling in creating that um so you're going to even buy uh pins and badges which say themes do not emerge um so you can show your antipositivist stance for when you're doing grounded theory um there's also a lot of people who talk about um grounded theory not being suitable for using with qualitative data analysis software um I don't really understand those arguments um the qualitative software there's a lot of discussion that it pushes you down a particular analytical path I've not found one qualitative software I've used pretty much all of them now um that I would say is trying to encourage one particular type of analysis over the other certainly in the tutorials and manuals may show one approach more than another um but they can certainly all be made to do all the different types of grounded theory I would argue um and again it's about understanding that these are just tools and the way that you use them as tools um means that you can apply them to different approaches just like you were with knowing how to use a pen or a screwdriver or or word um once you've mastered it you can you can make it do anything you'd like the important thing is not to get too distracted by the features of the software um and let that dictate your analytical style but in all the qualitative software there are different ways that you can create codes and themes differentiate between those codes and themes remap and rework them um group them together um to do open and axial coding all these different approaches so I would argue it doesn't really matter I would not argue some people try to that there is one piece of software which is better for one particular type of grounded theory than another um I don't find within the capabilities of the software anything to really um support that um I'm willing to be proven wrong but but so far I've not seen any evidence of it so I'm now going to introduce quirkos very quickly as one possible software tool um the basics are going to be similar for the other software packages out there but quirkos focuses on um exploring and coding uh text data so just small qualitative text projects that's what it's aimed for uh with a focus on not too many features but it being quite easy to use and a very visual kind of approach and some people like that kind of visual way um of learning and I'll show how that can help with some of those kind of later stages of grounded theory as well the software is identical whether you're working on windows mac and linux um it comes from a greek word for circle um the ethos is to try and make qualitative analysis um more accessible more open for more people that's why I like kind of doing these overviews of some of these complicated topics to try and make things more accessible for people getting into qualitative research um and also that people don't spend too much time faffing around the software the software should be there to help you read and code and understand and analyse your data um rather than just trying to do fancy graphs and kind of push you in a particular direction so I'll show you how the codes um that which and themes which are represented by the bubbles in quirkos can kind of help with certain grounded theory approaches um and I'm not and yeah how there are different kind of ways to kind of move and manipulate those um to kind of help you build up towards your theories you're going along and doing that um there are also um options for memos and analytical text um some forms of classical of grounded theory um think that um you know the journal keeping your research journal your note taking and memoing is a very important part of it um some don't emphasise that as much um and I'm not going to talk too much about the reflexive writing um process today we're going to focus more on the kind of the codes and the coding um but they're there so you can create memos and you can also create a kind of um ongoing research journal um in quirkos and that can help with some of those processes so um let's go let's dive in um and let's see how this all looks uh in quirkos so what I've done today is just take um one of our example projects um which are available on our website and I'm free to download um the context of this does hopefully doesn't matter too much for the little example that I'm going to do today um but it's people talking about the Scottish referendum for independence which is back in 2014 now um and these are real interviews that we did with people who who voted in election one way or the other um but I'm going to try and draw out something that's a little bit of a kind of more broader social issue um and we're going to kind of see what kind of topics and themes which we're going to merge um and I've not done this before with this data and this extract of this data I've not tried to analyse it in this way um so this is a is a proper kind of grounded theory kind of approach I've not I've also not done any kind of literature review on this although what I would I would probably want to do is start out with some kind of reflexivity statement um or at least go through a reflexivity procedure where I'm acknowledging um my own kind of political leanings my positionality um my privileges my things that might end up being subconscious biases um and so um that's something that that would be kind of part of the process very important for me possibly not for for some kinds of grounded theory but but that's up up to you for you to describe some of the the classical grounded theory would describe too much focus on reflexivity as being a distraction from the data I think that's it's it's difficult to most people it's difficult to get too much reflexivity I think but um yeah I mean there's the potential for everybody who likes to talk about themselves but it's it's um unlikely to distract most people from data I think I don't really hold hold on to that argument so what we're going to do here is we're going to look at this um one section of um data here um which is talking about um whether this particular respondent Adrian that's not their real name this is a real interview um feels that um the vote so voting yes for independence or no for Scotland to stay as part of the UK whether there was um that that was there were trends along um income lines so if more richer and affluent people were more likely to vote one way then people of lower income or people in poverty so this is something that we can we can draw out over the course of hopefully just a couple of paragraphs um and what we're going to do first is it doesn't really matter too much kind of how which terminology I use that so please don't focus too much on that um so we're going to do initial kind of code codes so those classical ground theory you would describe substantive codes in modified ground theory these would be your open codes and same in constructive is coding um and some others as well so we're going to start with some some open coding so you can see we've got in Quercos we've got the the source of text here on the right um and then we've also got here this is the what we call the canvas area so this is where we create the codes and eventually themes um and this is black so we've not created any codes um we're jumping straight into the data here um and we're going to get straight into that one of the other things I mentioned is that a lot of forms of grounded theory will also have prescriptions about how you um recruit data how you sample for the data and that there there should be some kind of um engagement between a kind of a comparative approach going between um collecting new data analyzing collecting new data and that's something else we're not going to get into too much today um but today we're just going to look at this one source and we're just going to see what kind of codes that we can pull out in a kind of grounded theory way so so the interviewer and that was me says do you think that there was variation within Edinburgh um are they talking about okay so this was originally talking about regions so there wasn't a leading question here to talk about um income affluence or anything like that um so do you think there was variation within Edinburgh I haven't seen any analysis I would suspect there was I think the affluent middle class suburbs would have voted no so to stay in the United Kingdom so voting no to um Scottish independence and well Leith parts of Leith Pylton and Craig Miller would have voted yes I suspect but that's pure speculation so what do I want to what what am I going to pull out here so uh I haven't seen any analysis so I actually think that this is probably a code um now I've read this other sentence I I really want to make this code speculation but let's say um we're going to create a code we're going to call this uninformed um and in Quercost there's a tool which is very useful for this kind of um kind of initial coding process where you can create a new code by dragging dropping a section of text onto the plus button and that creates a new code um with that text already in it so we'll call this we're going to call this uninformed so okay I'm already I think uh themes are not emerging um I am I'm branding them um my researcher I'm saying this person is is uninformed uh even though they say I haven't seen any analysis we're doing something like IPA or in vivo coding we might use those own words so no analysis um or personal opinion maybe maybe another way to describe it but let's let's do some terrible coding because we can learn from that so let's call this uninformed so I haven't seen any analysis so this person's uninformed but I suspect there was okay so it's not really clear what that's referring to um I'm going to actually put all of that in a code which we'll call variation uh and we're going to put a description in here because variation could be for anything um but we'll call this variation um in how people vote there's just a little bit clear of what that is and we can change the colour but we'll just leave that for now um so I've got these two bubbles if you don't use QR codes before um they're created with random colours in a random place um and when we can drag and move them around so we're just going to move them a little bit closer here I think the absolute middle class suburbs would have voted no and well Leith parts of Leith Pildon and Craig Miller would have voted yes so those are actually poorer kind of districts in Edinburgh so um how could we we could we could we could pull this out in a couple ways I think the absolute middle class suburbs would have voted no so we'll put this into no vote voters so this is sections of text of people talking about people voting no and we could put it somewhere else as well so I think we'll also put this in we'll call this we'll use we'll use the participants own word which is affluent and where Leith parts of Leith Pildon and Craig Miller would have voted yes so we'll take that section um and we'll also put that in okay so we'll create another code here called yes focus and we'll put that in that interactive coding on the fly I hope this is exciting for you and we'll put this in um okay so it's not described what that would be um so unaffluent I don't know so you can see already that one of the issues with with open coding is is it being quite quite difficult to not use your own words your own terminology to describe what someone else is saying so here this was easy because they used the word affluent but they didn't it was explicit within the context of the sentence that this person was talking about the opposite of affluence but they didn't say poor or impoverished or or um any particular word that we could use that will kind of accurately describe how they would probably describe that um so now we've got one two three four five I suspect but that's pure speculation so I'm going to put this in a new code called speculation okay so we have one sentence two sentences one answer and we created one two three four five six seven codes out there so the open coding process can be quite expensive like this let's try and before we go on to next sentence kind of pull this across a little bit and see what's going on um so this doesn't make a lot of sense to me at the moment I'm going to put the no and yes voters kind of a little bit together and this is one of the things that I quite like about using quercos for this kind of open coding process is that you can you can move things around and put them together in ways that that make sense not necessarily thematically yet but they might start to be thematic and so that can kind of make things start start to come together and we've got I'm sorry so affluence and unaffluent we're going to put together uninform of speculation we're going to put together we're just going to put variation that's kind of being a separate thing but what we could do no we'll leave it just there for now so I'm just going to zoom in a little bit here so we can see see these a bit clearer because it'll probably be a bit smaller on your screen okay so we might go through and use these same codes again I think income would be influential right so that's going to be about variation you can see that so the relative sizes shows you how much has been coded here um people have a good lifestyle and things are okay as they were whereas you're less off so the government introduced these changes to the welfare system the bedroom tax and all that kind of thing people say what's Westminster done for us that's concentrated in areas of impoverishment because it only affects you if you're in a council house so this is he's talking well let's let's just pull this out again it's one of those things where where the the way that they've spoken it's not very clear if you if you just pull out particular extracts what they're talking about but this is about affluence so let's take that bit put it in affluence and that makes them actually more likely to be no voters oh sorry so it's not affluent so I'm going to undo that remove that and that's sorry that needs to go in i'm going to put that in unaffluent okay so we've got these terrible themes here well don't worry we're going to come back and look at these of course the much more harsh principles on which benefits were allocated again by affecting people in areas living where benefits are important issues so this is again about unaffluent people it's a horrible term that's changed admin I think Edinburgh tended to support no campaign because Edinburgh's got pretty well full employment but that's not full there's a lot of unemployment so it's starting to ramble a little bit so we'll just take that a little bit and put that in that's about variation it's about no voters it's about affluence again but i'm also going to put this in Edinburgh because we don't have a category for that but it's it's probably an important thing that we look at it's got an edinburgh there so far well there's not far from Edinburgh whereas in Glasgow in the west there is is unemployment so Dundee which is beginning to rise again there's still quite a lot of variation so i'm going to put this bit uh we'll create a new one which is called Glasgow create another one which is called Dundee again yeah i'm trying to come to this blank but I know people are going to be talking about these cities later on so it's worth creating codes for these and I'm going to put this in unaffluence right okay so right we've we've done quite a bit coding actually we didn't create too many new codes in that new section so that's good but we've got these now can't say I'm particularly happy with them that's okay um unaffluence so I don't really like this um especially how I've spelled it so what we can do is we'll right click and we'll change the name of this and I think we'll say um wealthy now again this is this is kind of like a controversial part of the open coding process so as we go along we may find maybe creating lots of new codes that's fine but we may find that the codes just need to be described in better ways and that's okay it's a natural kind of part of the process um or that we need to um merge some of the codes together and a good example of that here is the speculation and uninformed I mean I really think they're the same thing I slightly prefer the the speculation term I don't really like either of those because he did use the speculation term himself so I'm going to right click on uninformed and I'm going to merge that into um speculation where is it there okay I don't need to change the color or anything like that right so I've put those those two bits there uh speculation um and didn't do any analysis together as that's kind of speculation um so I'm already kind of here beginning to I wouldn't say that was kind of building towards anything I don't think this is starting to be a kind of actual coding or creating something some kind of like high level thing it's not really very focused it's just really kind of putting together um open codes that are just very similar and there'll be a lot of that for example I created all these codes for Edinburgh, Dundee and Glasgow these are just cities in Scotland that were mentioned um I think they'll probably be important later on because I think people will also refer to these these cities because they voted very differently but that's that's because I've got a preconceived idea in my head um I probably would have created the codes anyway um but if if it turns out that it's not necessary to have those we may just create one code which is cities it may be that cities and rural regions are going to be more important than actually specifying which city somebody comes from and we've got yes voters here and we've got no voters um I think that's going to be fine as is we'll probably want to see the different things which people claim yes voters and no voters are saying um there may also be the issue about are people talking about themselves or people kind of implying they understand how others think that might be something else that we want to look at here as well but anyway this has been a a fairly typical kind of open coding session I would say um some standard coding or however you want to describe it um and so we did a kind of ground of theory we we went through and we started kind of creating codes without kind of an idea about what codes we're going to create I hadn't looked at this data with this this kind of eye before we're not going to look at any more data from this project because I want to kind of focus just on these paragraphs but is there any way we can kind of build this into something else is this suggesting something already well I kind of think it is I mean if I was to describe what this person said to you um I would say I could probably describe it in a very simple sentence I could say this person thinks that the people who voted um yes were more likely to be impoverished um because they were unhappy with the political system but they felt the political system hadn't helped them enough um and you could describe that the other way round you could say you know I think this person thinks that people voted no or to stay with the UK because they were well off the government and looked after them so they didn't see a need for change okay so how can I kind of bring those codes so the idea about variation the idea about um kind of like poverty is really the divider or income is the divider so let's let's I think that's good actually so let's talk about income and we'll say this is financial because it could be it could be something else um oops we'll zoom out now because my code's just going to go over the base so we've got this thing called income um an income may actually start being a kind of a high level theme so that might be something which is kind of actual because beginning to bring things together there may be high levels above that so income might be actually what what are we really talking about income we're talking about um inequality that's is that not really what what this is this is talking about now you might say that I'm jumping to conclusions based on just reading two paragraphs of one interview and you're absolutely right this is some process that I probably start reflecting on after I've done coding across open coding across all the different interviews but for the sake of the exercise today I'm just looking at two paragraphs so so basically for me let's move this away so I've got we have these themes these codes wealthy and variation these these could become themes and my kind of selective code or my theoretical kind of level could be inequality and that kind of makes sense to me so I can just group things a little bit like this just by keeping them close together in quercos by dragging them around and until I'm kind of sure that's usually how I do things in quercos when I come to that stage I'm kind of coding my codes I'm reading through I'm I'm trying to connect things trying to build theory trying to do the actual style of things so what I could also say is that inequality uh there are various different types of inequality income is one of them so I'm going to drag and drop income onto there I'm actually going to drag wealthy um oh a little variation there sorry an influence there so I've now created subcategories so under inequality I've got income and under income I've got affluence and wealthy because it may very well be that there are other forms of inequality which are important here um so inequality could be um race so that could be something that comes out later we could say so that would want to be you know in this open axial mode that might be something that starts connecting together um we start to see elements of race coming racism coming through we want to talk about those different types of inequality um and we may also take I don't even know that maybe education so all these could be different different kind of factions of of inequality which are kind of building us towards a theory of why people are voting a certain way but there's something else there's something even higher than this I think and that that is this kind of thing which this person is talking about here the government introduced all these changes to the welfare system uh and because it only affects you if you're in a council house so there's this this concept that the government is not providing the government is the cause of this inequality or at least the government is not not fixing it so it's it's let's call it dissatisfaction with government now you could call this liberalism you could call this um a bunch of different kind of political states but but all this person is really saying here I can drag and drop this text there to to actually give that example there is that he thinks that people vote a particular way based on whether they're satisfied or dissatisfied with the current government and whether they want the government from the political system to change so I would argue that that's at least for this participant that's that's kind of their theory to explain what's going on here and so that's what I've tried to pull through this process with my open codings I was just looking at these very basic things like income um and there were also specific things that we could look up here council housing so um as an example of um and and the welfare state the welfare system yeah let's not have right so let's put that in house housing as well but that's renamed that welfare system because those are both factions of the welfare system and the people who are relying on the welfare system are not very happy right now and so they want to change government but if you're already rich you've got a good job then you're not particularly looking for for for an income a change in the government and what I suspect we'll see knowing this data as we go through and talk about that is that that's certainly one thing that people have talked about but then there are a lot of other factors that people talk about people talk about pride people talk about nationalism they talk about freedom so those are different things to to being dissatisfied dissatisfied with the welfare system really um so i'm already kind of connecting these kind of things together in my head but that's the kind of process that in grounded theory that that will do and I think it's very important when you're going through and doing the analysis and coding process is to try and play to try and explore different things that might explain this create new theories see if they're they're kind of like fitting your open codes and if not going back and trying something else so you know I created this dissatisfaction with government I created the inequality one first and then dissatisfaction with government and then the welfare system so all these things were kind of building towards something which eventually could be a kind of even higher kind of theoretical thing than than dissatisfaction with government because that could talk about independence or some freedom or some other things as well so this was a very kind of quick and crude example just because I think it becomes very abstract when you're just reading the papers which just describe the different approaches between different types of grounded theory and it helps to kind of see some of the problems that you come up with like labelling codes and when which one of these are codes and which one of these are themes and one of the things that you would do um in Cuercos is you can create groups so we I would often do codes is a group another one which is called themes so um yes voters for me that's a code and no voters that's also a code so I can assign any of these codes to the groups dissatisfaction with government this is beginning to become a theme and actually I don't think the welfare system is I think that's probably something very descriptive so I think that's going to stay as a code but inequality I think that's that's kind of like a higher level theme for me so that's going to be a theme and so what I can do now is I can choose which group that I show so it may later on be that you don't want to see all these codes anymore you just want to see your themes your kind of higher level concepts because it will get very busy if you've got hundreds of open codes but there may also be some things like dissatisfaction with government I mean this could also be a code I mean people could just be straight up saying that they they don't like government and that could also be something which is is a higher level thing so these dissatisfaction government would appear as a code and a theme so it's going to appear in both of us so that's us so you've got those groups as well as the the hierarchies to be able to drag codes on to each other and group them that way and also just just again remember the the physicality of moving things kind of close together can help in a way that doesn't kind of set your mind into this is a subset of that so I find that kind of like a bit more flexible and you can also play with the colors as well so you can give you know these cities kind of distinctive colors or all the cities different shades of orange so you know that those are codes those are cities there's lots of different ways that you can play with those in the software and and kind of explore those a little bit so that's pretty much all I'm going to talk about today if you've got any questions or anything else you'd like me to demonstrate do put them in the chat right now I'll have a quick look and see if there's something I can demonstrate now if you do want to try Quercos you can go straight to our website you can download a free trial and you can see exactly how that works for you there's no restrictions on the free trial it's 21 days for the offline license and 14 days with the cloud subscription and there's a lot of more materials on the website so the blog we've got there I'll put a link in that in the description as well the blog not only talks about Quercos but all these different things the Grounded Theory and IPA and all these different things and there's also a lot of resources there for for doing methods as well so I'm talking about doing interviews and tips for focus groups and so on so there's a lot of resource there there's also lots of free tutorials and ways for you to learn Quercos and apply some of these different approaches so do go and have a look at the website it's www.quercos.com and see if that's something that might help you on a qualitative research journey so thanks for coming along today no questions in the chat so I'll end the session here but thanks so much for coming along and don't forget to check out Quercos