THE SOCIAL CONTEXT AS 8
are defined, and separate utterances of the text are extracted, classified, and gathered into
these categories/groups” (p. 13). During this process, analytical memos were written as
preliminary connections were made between theoretical concepts and specific issues
emerging from the participant's individual story and how these connected to wider cultural
narratives. The analytical memos along with the coding helped shape the analytic process.
This form of analysis is intended to examine the thematic similarities and differences
between the accounts provided. The strength of this approach lies in its capacity to develop
general knowledge about the core themes that make up the content of the accounts collected
in interview contexts with a view to identifying narrative segments and categories within it.
In order to develop plausible interpretations, throughout the categorical-content
analysis, (name of author) presented his emerging findings on a regular basis to two
colleagues. One of these was his doctoral supervisor (name of author) and the other one
(name of author) was well versed in qualitative research and was familiar with SDT. The role
of these two colleagues was to act as “critical friends” and provide a theoretical sounding
board to encourage reflection upon, and exploration of, alternative explanations and
interpretations as they emerged in relation to the data (e.g., see Smith & Sparkes, 2006). As
part of this dialogic process, (name of author) was required to make a defendable case that
the available data supported his categorization of themes. This approach should not be
confused with more formal procedures to obtain inter-subjective reliability that involves a
consensualist conception of truth. Such an approach, according to Kvale (1996) may “lead to
a tyranny by the lowest common denominator: That an interpretation is only reliable when it
can be followed by everyone, a criterion that could lead to a trivialization of the
interpretations” (p. 181). In contrast, the notion of presenting a defendable case
acknowledges that while there can be agreement, not all those involved in the process need to
define the meanings of a particular data set in the same way as they can be positioned