13
moving on to focused coding.
4
Open coding was a lengthy process of, line by line,
categorizing the field notes into specific groupings and eventually combining these
groupings into broad themes. Then the focused coding – i.e. another read-through and
coding of the data, but this time with specific topics in mind – emphasized these themes,
as well as the ideas and concepts derived from conversations with asthma advocates.
Finally, after all of the coding was finished, I separated cases into different levels
of participation and “compliance.”
5
Families were labeled “highly compliant” if
advocates’ notes explicitly stated the family was “eager,” “compliant,” “receptive,” or
“maintains regular appointments.” “Low compliance” was identified through notes
stating that the family was “non compliant,” “uninterested,” “doesn’t follow through,”
etc. High participation was defined as completing the final interview in the program,
medium participation was identified by a “case open” file status, and low participation
was assigned if the case was terminated or the advocate lost contact with the family.
Results
A variety of seemingly unrelated topics emerged during open coding. One of the
most salient, yet unexpected topics was the extended kinship network. Advocates’
anecdotes, evaluation forms and telephone logs repeatedly referenced the influence of
grandmothers, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Yet, the idea of an extended network in and of
itself did not seem to constitute an obstacle. Consequently, I returned to the sociological
literature and it soon became evident that the extended kinship network could serve as the
4
For a thorough discussion of the open and focused coding processes, see Emerson et al (1995).
5
I use the advocate’s labels of compliance as a second source of measuring participation because neither
measurement is an exceptional proxy. Nonetheless, I continue to employ the concept of participation rather
than “compliance” or “adherence”. These families have shown a strong desire to participate in the