Authors: Anthony Arcuri and Doris McIlwain

Analysis processes

Our process of arriving at theory involved us cycling somewhat haphazardly through the various coding procedures numerous times. From very early in our analysis, not only did we identify concepts through open coding and articulate relationships among our concepts via axial coding, we also began to discover the ways in which these concepts and their relationships changed over time, thus 'coding for process'. More specifically, Anthony began to identify sequences of evolving 'actions/interactions', which were the result of changes in 'conditions', which themselves were the result of either external forces or the 'consequences' of 'actions/interactions'.

For example, during data analysis, Anthony hypothesised that for a sexual attraction perceived as interfering with therapy but deemed manageable nonetheless (the 'conditions'), a psychotherapist might attempt to minimise the impact of his or her attraction on therapy by mentally distracting himself or herself from the attraction during sessions (the 'action/interaction'). Anthony theorised further that, when such an attempt is unsuccessful (the 'consequence'), the psychotherapist is likely to perceive the sexual attraction as less manageable (a change in 'conditions'), which necessitates a new approach to handling the sexual attraction (the evolving 'action/interaction'). Finally, Anthony posited that this cyclical process continues until either the sexual attraction is managed successfully or the therapy is terminated. To assist in identifying these processes, Anthony created memos and diagrams explaining their flow.

Once we thought we had comprehensively identified the concepts, sequences and processes relating to the phenomenon under investigation, we were ready to begin our attempt at articulating our grounded theory. Anthony's first reaction to this impending task, though, was to wonder if it were indeed possible. Having watched the piles of analytic paperwork grow, he had developed an insidious sense of anxiety and dread: how would we ever turn this complicated jumble of words, hypotheses and diagrams into a coherent and whole theory? In Doris's attempts to manage Anthony's fears, she encouraged him to draw strength from our knowledge that those before us had found a way; to continue to rely on the data analytic techniques prescribed by those who had developed the grounded theory method; and, humbly, to trust ourselves to bring our theory into being.

'Selective coding' allowed us to realise our theory by providing us with a series of techniques for integrating concepts, and their relationships and processes, into a cohesive whole. Anthony's first task was to identify a central concept that represented the main theme of our research to which all other concepts could relate. Perhaps because of the specific nature of our research, our central concept was, simply, 'sexual attraction to a client'. Our next step involved a combination of tasks that we cycled through until we arrived at a draft of our overall theory.

Anthony reviewed and sorted our memos and diagrams into physical piles strewn across a rather large floor to provide a topographical sense of where all of our concepts belonged in relation to each other. In constructing diagrams to record this map, Anthony discovered, importantly, that to create a single diagrammatical representation of our theory he needed to pan back far enough to allow all of our hypotheses to be subsumed logically under a relatively uncomplicated yet all-encompassing theoretical scheme. As a result, his diagrammatical snapshot of our overall theory appeared exceedingly general, but invisibly embedded within this diagram was a multitude of detailed and specific hypotheses. To give voice to these hypotheses and place them clearly and appropriately within our overall theory, Anthony wrote an informal yet detailed 'storyline' of our grounded theory - a free-flowing narrative incorporating all of our concepts, their relationships with each other, and the ways in which they change over time.

A short excerpt from our rather long storyline follows: "The process of handling sexual attraction to a client involves an appraisal of the sexual attraction, which contributes to the perception of the manageability of the sexual attraction, and provides a context within which to assess the consequences and ethicality of options for handling the sexual attraction. In turn, the appraisal of the sexual attraction, the perceived manageability of the sexual attraction, and the assessment of the consequences and ethicality of options for handling the sexual attraction contribute to the psychotherapist's decision about how to handle the sexual attraction."

On multiple occasions we tweaked, altered or even discarded and recommenced our attempts at the tasks described above, but with each reiteration we learned something new about how our concepts did or did not relate to each other as a whole. For example, it seemed to Anthony when he attempted to theorise from a distance that the particular context of a sexual attraction (e.g., its intensity, its timing, the degree to which it interfered with the therapy) contributed directly to the way in which it was handled by the psychotherapist. We learned by reengaging with and discussing our memos and the raw data, however, that the context of the sexual attraction instead contributed indirectly via the psychotherapist's unique appraisal of its value and relevance to the handling process.

When we had arrived at an adequate draft of our theoretical scheme, we tested its credibility by showing our 'storyline' to five of our participants for comment on how well it fitted their experiences of, and attitudes toward, handling sexual attractions to clients. Largely, these participants indicated that our theory was consistent with their experiences and attitudes, but where they suggested that parts of our storyline expressed misinterpretations of their experiences or attitudes, we adjusted it accordingly.

Back to Project Home Page