What do Easy Read and qualitative data analysis have in common?

I'm going to assume you know what Easy Read is. If you don't, check out Planet Easy Read. 

Easy Read relies on images and words. A good rule of thumb is that if a sentence needs two images, then it should be two sentences. If one image covers more than one sentence, you may be able to condense what you are writing.

Some words and phrases hide so much. Those two words 'qualitative data'. What image would you use? If there isn't a single image, then what is being masked from everyday view by the phrase? If a conference full of qualitative researchers were asked to submit a single image, there'd be quite a variety of images. Perhaps someone has done that! If not, perhaps they should. 

The sort of qualitative data I'm picturing as I write this blog is one familiar to many researchers: a set of transcripts from conversations, interviews and focus groups. 

A standard (pre-software days) approach would be to read, re-read, make some notes and then take highlighters to the text. You stare at the highlighted parts. Sometimes a word or phrase leaps to mind that sums up the essence of why you highlighted it. These words and phrases become 'provisional codes'.  

In my semi-techie way, I copy & paste my highlighted fragments into Excel, so each fragment has its own row in a worksheet, together with a column to identify which transcript it came from, and a column for its provisional code. 

I look at my provisional codes, and the text associated with them. Does some of the text need moving to a different provisional code because as I look at all the fragments of text, I realise I've mis-allocated text. Do I need to change the name of the code because everything seems to hang together but only if I change the word or phrase used as the code? Have I conflated different ideas under one code and need to split that provisional code into two or more? 

This is almost identical to how I produce Easy Read, except when I produce Easy Read I don't have to do it by myself; I always co-produce it with someone who relies on Easy Read as a way to access information. You can no more plonk a pretty picture and expect it to make the text more 'accessible' than you can plonk a nice-sounding code and expect it to make what the data is saying to you more 'accessible' to you. And yet that is often what happens in Easy Read - and sadly can happen in qualitative research too.

Both Easy Read and this type of qualitative data analysis involve taking large volumes of words and making meaning with and from them. In both, the starting point is a highlighter pen to identify what (in your eyes) is important. In one, the meaning-making moves on to adding a provisional image before shuffling back & forward between image and text until satisfied that the image means the words, and the words mean the image - or near enough! In the other, the meaning-making moves to adding a summarising word before shuffling back and forward between code and text fragment (or free node - or whatever terminology you use) until satisfied that the code fits the words, and the words fit the code.

There's going to be more I need to say - but for now I must dive back into qualitative data analysis because this doctoral thesis is not going to write itself!

Applying sociology

Sociology is too useful to be allowed to hide in universities.

Social theories of culture: we create meaning as we interact. That means we can learn and choose to interact in ways that create different meanings from the social norms. Is that a lever for changing social norms? Still not sure, but it makes it easier to work as equal colleagues in a world that says we cannot be when we know meanings aren't fixed.

 

Membership categorisation: if membership categories exist, can we play with the signifiers for categories to get ourselves put into a different category? Conclusion: yes. We call it 'wearing the right shoes'

 

Ethnomethodological disruption experiments: knowing about these takes the sting out of situations where we think we are acting normally but others act as if we are conducting a disruption experiment. It makes us proud to be naturally disruptive, rather than scared or angry at what had been incomprehensible or offensive reactions to us.

 

Wittgenstein: why do we end up in meetings where people are using the same words but seem to be talking at cross-purposes? Probably because we are picturing different things as we say the word. So let's go round the room and check what we are picturing. Job done. We know why we are talking at cross-purposes and can do something about it.

 

Goffman: front stage/backstage, framing, Othering. These concepts and language give us tools to understand and communicate effectively about how life works and in doing that, it makes it easier for everyone to see ways to play the game differently.  

 

Post-structuralism: the relief that dividing things into two groups (binary thinking) is an idea not a reality. This means we can escape the binary thinking that has stymied our attempts to be ourselves in a world that wants to divide us into 'disabled' and 'normal'. 

Becoming Welshflier

We all have a personal identity - how we see ourselves.

And then we have a social identity - how we are seen and the roles we play in relation to others.

If we are very lucky, there is a good deal of overlap. 

I'm one of the Women's Equality Network (WEN) mentees for 2020, and I've been taking the opportunity to try to develop a professional identity that sits comfortably with who I am and what I want to achieve.

It's been a bit of a Goldilocks experience. First I was too focused on how I want others to see me. Then I was too focused on how I see myself. And - finally - I think I've got it just right. 

I am me. Being me is enough. I do not need to try to develop a 'not-me' persona for the sake of making others more comfortable around me, or getting public appointments. Who I am is enough for me, and it is the best that I can offer others.

It comes down to silly things, superficial things. 

• I knew I wanted to change how I dress and present myself, because I wasn't feeling the confident, professional person I wanted to be. And that was a good judgement call on my part. But... I thought that meant a suit and makeup. It doesn't. For me, it means a shaved head and rainbow stitched soft leather Doc Martins, with whatever clothing is suitable for the weather hanging comfortably and confidently in between. It's my Welshflier identity. 

• I thought my welshflier@ email address looked childish and would put off anyone recruiting for strategic professional roles. So I created a new 'proper professional adult' one. That wasn't a success. I *am* my digital identity - I *am* Welshflier. So if the name doesn't fit, it's a good indication that neither would I. 

I poured everything into trying to construct a professional persona that I thought would get me where I want to be.  It sucked the life out of my soul, which I am sure showed through in the applications which were not successful. 

This is where being on the WEN mentoring scheme helped. I have learned to own my identity as Welshflier. It means I can be confidently me, knowing that 'me' is an incredible patchwork of strengths and flaws, all woven together. 

And so I applied for another public appointment, but this time as myself. As I thought how to present 'the real me' in the application, I might as well have been singing along to 'This is me' with the cast of The Greatest Showman. 

The days of being an unhappy chameleon, unsuccessfully trying to adapt myself to make others comfortable are over. Long live Welshflier!

Fortunately, part of 'me being me' is a desire for others to shine and grow, so I like to think I won't do too much damage by being me. If anything, I may be less socially inept than when I was trying to be what I'm not.

I needed a head and shoulders shot for someone. Can't say why yet! But let's just say that being me paid off and my application as myself was successful. I almost rushed round the house looking for a smart jacket so I'd 'look the part'. Fortunately I caught myself in time. And so, this is me. 

Thinking about thinking

 

Much is written and said in sociology about ‘reflecting’ and ‘being reflexive’. It is something I am told I do instinctively and habitually. However it is not something I recognise in myself.

I observe. I’ve always observed. I went on training about ‘Most Significant Change method of process evaluation.

In English, the Most Significant Change method of process evaluation is a way to working out, while a new policy or public service is being tried out, what people affected think is the most significant change that they personally would attribute to the new policy or service. The significance for me is that you get an early warning of unintended consequences. You also get the information needed to fine-tune the policy or public service while it is still in process rather than waiting until it’s all over and looking back to see what worked and what didn’t.

During the training, we were asked to test out one part of the method. I asked if I could observe and make notes of my observations because I was uncomfortable about my ability to learn what I wanted to learn about the method by being immersed.

I have two things I always do after observing.

I consciously relax my face and body and shut my eyes. I slow my breathing and when I feel relaxed I start to gently probe and feel whether anything seems to have fallen into a pattern.  Sometimes I begin to write or draw and as I do, my brain catches up and I look at what I’ve produced and realise that I am putting what I was feeling into thoughts on paper.

And I puzzle. Sometimes I puzzle before relaxing. Sometimes I puzzle immediately after as I look at what I have put on paper. Sometimes it is a completely different time. I puzzle away with a furrowed brow, usually leaning forward, elbows on table, hands together and index fingers tapping each other and gliding against my lips. Or elbows on table, hands in a loose fist, base of thumbs against chin, tips of thumbs by lips, rhythmically and rapidly rocking from my elbows so I get gentle repeated pressure on my chin. Then the deep breath out, pause in movement, deeper furrow, and either repeat the rocking process or start to draw or write. Or I decide I have tried the puzzling route and it isn’t working. I make coffee. I go for a sauna. I lift heavy weights. An answer that satisfies me or at least moves my thinking forward may come – or it may not.

I can recognise what I do when I relax as the process other people describe when they say they are being reflexive. And I guess that the outputs of my relaxing are similar to the outputs of people who have talked about being reflexive.

But my dominant method of thinking is puzzling. I can be quite the dog with a juicy bone as I puzzle. I am unsocial, impatient, demanding and cannot bear to be interrupted. There is none of the gentle, dare I say hippy, connotation I have of ‘reflecting’. And there is none of the feelings that I associate with ‘being reflexive’ which for me at least is a far more consciously cerebral activity. When I puzzle, I am rooted in trying to make sense of what I am observing. The closest representation I have ever seen of what I do is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FSKTndbwVo, down to Sherlock’s shaking the rapid stream of thoughts out of his head as he finds them lacking. If you watch the clip, you will see why I describe myself as unsocial etc when I am in puzzling mode.

So what of this piece of writing? It is not me relaxing. It is not me puzzling. It is me typing out something that doesn’t need puzzling but did need me to put into words so I can see it at a glance rather than keep it in my head. Sometimes it’s easier to think when it is in words on a screen – or on paper. Maybe this is my bit of reflecting and being reflexive. Who knows? I really can’t work out how non-autistic people think, so I find it hard to connect with their words for thinking. 

Feedback, as always, most welcome.

This and this and this

I have a very bad habit of saying 'this or that'. I have that habit with humans, particularly myself. It is a habit that makes it difficult for me to accept everything about me all at the same time. It is the habit at the heart of my categorising things and people until I feel I have made sufficient sense of life.

So I am either good or bad. I am reliable or unreliable. I am on a diet or off a diet. 

The irony is that I know intellectually that binaries suck. Life is not binary. Humans cannot be reduced to being this or that. And yet I still use binaries as a stick to beat myself. When I make a mistake, I'm not competent and incompetent, I must switch my mental image of myself to being fundamentally incompetent. It is exhausting, damaging and unnecessary.

Enter Deleuze. Life is a series of 'and'. I am this and this and this and this. As my beloved Buzz Lightyear might say, I can continue those ands 'to infinity and beyond'. 

How different might my life and self-identity - and my ability to complete a doctoral thesis (!) - be if I allowed myself to be competent and incompetent and clever and inadequate and resistant to being self-categorised into binary boxes and making use of binary boxes in everyday life and ...

Even thinking about is is freeing. And scary. It feels as if the space I inhabit in this social world is increasing with each and that I add. As a woman who was been taught from early childhood not to take up too much space - psychologically, audibly, physically, relationally - that is powerfully liberating. 

If I do not try to constrict myself and make myself small by squeezing me into boxes, I fear I will become like the giant Alice of Lewis Carroll's creation, and trample and break all that is in my path. I also smile inwardly at the thought of seeing what shape and size I become when I allow myself to be and and and and and. 

And I remember the words of Marianne Williamson...

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

And I wonder what the next few years will hold.

The Wife of Bath, authority and the autoethnographer

Prologue

I did S level English. Yep, it really did exist once upon a time but was already dying out by the time I sat it in 1983. I think the S stood for 'Special', but it might have been 'Scholarship' or 'Supplementary' or - who knows? It was an extra and different type of paper you could sit if you were doing the A level. It was a chance to do something more like the old-style university-style intellectualising. 

And the fact I did S level, learned Latin and went to an independent school probably explains why studying Canterbury Tales for A-level led to my taking part in a philosophical debate about the authority of experience versus the authority of books. To my intense frustration, I can't remember the Latin terms used for the two ways of arguing - the argument from real life, and the argument settled by quoting 'an authority'. 

The Wife of Bath and authority

Canterbury Tales is a mischievous book, with the fictitious accounts of a number of pilgrims heading together to Canterbury. To keep themselves amused along the way, each tells a story. And before the story, each pilgrim got to say something about themselves and the reason for their choice of tale. I think it's only know that I'm realising quite how subversive Chaucer was. His subversion and mischief is no-where more evident than in the Wife of Bath's prologue. 

She begins:

"Experience, though noon auctoritee

were in this world, is right ynogh for me"

or - "experience, though there were no authorities in this world, is quite enough for me"

or- "What I know from what I've lived through is enough (evidence) for me. I don't need established authorities or texts." - but she does then proceed to use authorities to back up her lived experience of sex and marriage. A lived experience that runs counter to anything sanctioned by the accepted authorities on sex and marriage. 

I have sympathy with the Wife of Bath, particularly given the authorities that were currently in vogue. I think I too reject authorities written by and for a repressive patriarchal system having any authority over my experience. But experience without authorities is not quite enough for me. I may not need established authorities as a starting point, but I do need them as mirrors to show my experience in different lights.  

Autoethnography and authority

I think of ethnography as the study of people's social interactions in their natural habitat.  Auto is about the self. So, to me, autoethnography is studying your own social interactions in your natural habitat. 

There is a tendancy in social science to begin with the authorities, and use them to examine experience. The authorities frame what can be seen and what can be asked of experience. Even ethnography, which looks as if it should start with people and their lives can become less a study of people's social interactions and more a study of what the ethnographer notices. What the ethnographer notices is a product of what they expect to see, and what they expect depends on which authorities they favour. 

Autoethnography makes it easier to begin with experience. Experience is allowed to frame what authorities you see as relevant and how you interact with those authorities. 

How one then uses those authorities is central. As a baby autoethnographer, it would be very easy for me to do a 'Wife of Bath' and simply look for authorities that I can argue agree with how I interpret my own experiences. As she continues her prologue, she draws on authorities to bolster her argument from experience. She is highly selective, and doesn't always use an authority in a way that it is intended to be used. I could use authorities with the intention of bolstering an argument that I would argue even if "noon authorities were in this world". But I believe that does my experience and autoethnography a dis-service. 

So. I don't want to begin with book-authority or theory. I want to begin with experience. But I do then want to use book-authorities as mirrors on my experience. And I want to use what I see to help me reflect on what I experience. I think this gives appropriate respect to both ways of knowing - knowing from living through something, and knowing from theorising.

I have noticed that autoethnography tends to go hand-in-hand with inability to sit within an academic discipline or school of thought. I guess that is an unsurprising consequence of starting with experience and moving out to see what light academic authorities can shed on that experience. 

And I guess that my starting with experience and wanting support to reflect on and find ways of framing my experience in a way that would make me more effective at changing the world is what led me both to autoethnography and inability to sit within an academic discipline.

Who'd have thought Middle Ages poetry is still be relevant?

Why am I fat?

Why am I fat?

We all have our own story. It will have a unique combination of elements from the complex obesity system. This is the Government’s own 2012 attempt to map the system: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296290/obesity-map-full-hi-res.pdf

Here’s my story, in so far as I can make sense of it.

Number 1. I faced a lot of trauma from an early age with no support to find healthy ways to process it. Things filling my mouth soothed me. Sugar rush relaxed me. Fatty food made me feel comforted and full.

Number 2. I was treated with oral steroids for eczema as a child as a hospital inpatient for a month. I went in slightly overweight. I came out morbidly obese and still covered with infected eczema.

Number 3. My first diet (under GP supervision) was at age 7. It solely consisted of restriction. It was enforced rigidly and harshly (they did it ‘for my own good’, and didn’t see the harm). I began stealing food.

Number 4. I was ridiculed and bullied for my size and physical lack of coordination and learned to hate PE and hate my body. I stopped doing anything active. I was 8.

Number 5. I was fed the message by media and family that I was unloveable unless I was slim. That didn’t help me feel loved or repair other trauma.

Number 6. I was offered diets in teenage girl magazines. My slimmer-than-me friends were always on diets. Females in my family were always on diets. A female relative died young - because she was fat because she wouldn’t go on a diet. So I tried every diet. I failed. I binged. I starved. My self-loathing grew.

Number 7. I believed the myth that failing to lose weight was my personal fault and I was just too weak and pathetic to stick to a diet. Because it was simple science. All that was required was: calories in must be lower than calories used.

Number 8. Social life revolves around food. To choose to restrict meant to watch others eat freely or to stay at home. Or go, eat everything I could, then hate myself.

Number 9. Foods became ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Eating ‘bad’ foods became an act of rebellion - against what, I’m no longer sure. But it was definitely a feminist issue.

Number 10. Rape meant I felt safer with a thick physical barrier of fat between me and other people. I could hide inside it. They couldn’t touch ‘the real me’. So I self-sabotaged. Once I’d lost enough weight for people to comment how nice I looked, I’d panic and eat as fast as I could to stop attracting attention.

Number 11. When skint, I couldn’t afford lean protein or lovely herbs and spices. Fat is cheaper. And tastier.

Number 12. (And I’m still learning to forgive myself for this) After a few years of successfully improving my relationship with my body and with eating, I panicked about making a weight category for a sporting competition, and after making weight I couldn’t stop over eating. The patterns of over 40 years of disordered eating can reappear when you least expect :(

And if you look at one of the complexity maps about obesity, my 12 reasons hardly scratch the surface of the complexity that creates and sustains someone’s obesity.

All fat people have their own story to tell about why they are fat.

So don’t tell me that it is as simple as move more, eat less, or change advertising, or use willpower.

*My story has a happy ending and I have an increasingly healthy life. My happy ending is because the reasons I am fat have been addressed. Other people’s happy endings will come when their reasons are addressed. No one gets a happy ending from being blamed for being fat.