Data of measures for analysing qualitative data

Data Analysis

Data was analysed using the
Qualitative analysis technique. There are two ways how we can perform qualitative
data analysis (Esterby-Smith et al, 2015, p 547), they are;

a)      Content

b)      (modified)
Grounded Analysis

In our research, we intend to use
the grounded analysis over content analysis. Charmaz (2014) said that Grounded theory
analysis is more of a spontaneous and inductive approach. Grounded analysis
uses the data in a different manner compared to the content analysis
(Esterby-Smith et al, 2015). Grounded theory proposes that researchers
frequently commence upon their studies with certain interests and a set of
general ideas. These will give an idea to pursue and ”sensitise” (Charmaz,
2014, p 22) researchers to ask specific queries about the research topic.
Researchers can build upon the ideas and concepts as they progress. Even though
this approach is less structured, it relies more on interpretation of data
collected (Saunders et al, 2008, p 149).

 Thomas D, 2006 states that under the grounded
analysis we intend to (a) summarize raw recorded data into a brief, summary
format; (b) create strong links between the research purpose and the summary
findings, derivative from the raw data; and (c) charter a structure of
understandings that are obvious in the raw data. This approach delivers a
simply used and organized set of measures for analysing qualitative data that
can yield consistent and effective findings. Although this method is not as
robust as some other analytic approaches but it does provide a modest, frank
approach for stemming findings in the background of intensive assessment
questions. This approach is expected to be less complicated and enable us to find
links between the findings and the purpose of the research.

Here we had summarised the
interviews (Saunders et al, 2008, p 239) conducted with the entrepreneur and
tried to categorise them, pertaining to the questions asked, so to arrive at a
structured analysis. Questions prepared were reflecting different phases of the
entrepreneurial journey, for e.g. inception, entrepreneurial journey. Latter we
dwelled into more specifics, for e.g. branding, target market, business model,
future growth possibilities, etc. By doing this, we could ask better questions
and also the entrepreneur was able to answer to our queries in an improved way.

Fereday and Muir-Cochrane(2006) shares another
idea of a hybrid methodology of inductive and deductive analysis methods,
namely thematic analysis. It involves the combination of both quantitative and
qualitative analyses. This methodology is useful for interpreting raw data to
suit the researcher’s purpose where outcome of analysis cannot be reached with
using just any one of the methodologies.