Virtual Seminar: Topic 5 Reading Seminar Group 2

In response to Moira’s post, I thought I might focus more on how the data was analysed and in particular what the researchers meant by thematic analysis. The paper clearly states that interviews were analysed thematically, beginning with identification of patterns in the data coded by 2 raters. The coding frame was adapted as the interviews progressed with the ‘appropriateness of the coding frame checked through progressive iterations and reapplied to earlier transcripts as it developed’. I thought this was explained very clearly, and allowed for information and ideas picked up in subsequent interviews to dictate how previous interviews were coded in order to identify common themes and patterns.

For me, this describes a way of trying to merge the ‘data’ from the interviews (the ideas and comments expressed regarding barriers and facilitators to disclosing domestic violence) into a solid group of dominant interpretive themes such as (with regard to service users and barriers to disclosure of domestic violence) ‘fear’, ‘blaming attitudes’, and ‘not recognising the behaviours as abusive’ and following on from this splitting the dominant themes into subthemes such as ‘fear disclosure will result in further violence’, ‘self-blame’ and ‘perpetrator disguising the abuse’. This seems the best method of assimilating the varied information presented in interviews into a recognisable set of patterns and ideas. Deviant cases were analysed (cases holding information deemed discrepant with overall analysis) and at the end of the analysis, concept maps were developed to represent data in a visual format. This was a very clear and easy to understand way to display the data collected from the interviews as it mapped all the themes that had emerged from the data after complete analysis. Overall I think the researchers were very clear in how they analysed the data and the themes and patterns that emerged.