uss, 2008). During axial coding, the researcher selected the concept that appeared to have the greatest explanatory relevance, placed it at the center of an axis, and related and connected other concepts to it (Charmaz & Henwood, 2008; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Corbin and Strauss (2008) explained that open and axial coding are so closely related that the distinction between the two is somewhat artificial. The researcher first breaks open the data in open coding to define the concepts, and this is followed by axial coding that puts the data back together by relating concepts to each other (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Coding and constant comparison. Patton (2002) beautifully wrote, "Analysis begins during a larval stage that, if fully developed, metamorphoses from caterpillar-like beginnings into the splendor of the mature butterfly" (p. 432). With such a goal in mind, 141 the researcher's work of data analysis was guided by constant comparison to compare incidents in the data with other incidents, and find similarities and differences between concepts, and plausible relationships between concepts (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Schram, 2006). The use of comparisons presses the researcher to examine his or her own bias and assumptions, and those of participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). While qualitative research and grounded theory methods designed to discover connections between concepts originating from data is often described (Glaser, 2009; Suter, 2012) as an inductive process, Corbin and Strauss (2008) argued that the method also uses deduction. The analysis is inductive because findings are derived from data, but the researcher in interpreting the data employs deductive logic (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Scholars have also argued that data analysis in the grounded theory tradition employs the logical inference of abduction (Reichertz, 2007; Shannak & Aldhmour, 2009), and the researcher found this to be the case. To complement the constant comparative analysis used, the researcher used theoretical comparisons to help him deal with unexplained incidents in the data that required wrestling with the data to identify the significance and meaning of the unexplained (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Theoretical comparisons are an analytical tool to stimulate logical thinking by comparing the properties and dimensions o f concepts (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In order to deal with surprising phenomenon, the methodology counts on abductive reasoning to explain the unexplained (Reichertz, 2007). Abductive reasoning attempts to close the gap by conjecturing an hypothesis, that if it
uss, 2008). During axial coding, the researcher selected the concept that appear to take the greatest explanatory relevance, placed it at the center of an bloc, and related and connected other concept to it (Charmaz & Henwood, 2008; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Corbin and Strauss (2008) explain that open and axial coding are so close related that the distinction between the two is somewhat artificial. The researcher first break open the data in open coding to define the concept, and this is followed by axial coding that put the data back together by relate concepts to each early (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Coding and ceaseless comparison. Patton (2002) beautifully wrote, " Analysis begins during a larval stagecoach that, if fully developed, metamorphoses from caterpillar - like beginnings into the splendor of the mature butterfly " (p. 432). With such a goal in mind, 141 the researcher's work of data analysis was guided by constant comparison to compare incidents in the data with early incident, and find similarity and dispute between concepts, and plausible relationships between concepts (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Schram, 2006). The habit of comparisons presses the researcher to examine his or her own diagonal and assumptions, and those of participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). While qualitative research and grounded theory methods designed to discover connections between concepts originating from data is frequently described (Glaser, 2009; Suter, 2012) as an inductive procedure, Corbin and Strauss (2008) argued that the method also uses deduction. The psychoanalysis is inductive because findings are derived from data, but the researcher in interpreting the data employs deductive logic (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Scholars have also argue that data analysis in the ground theory custom employs the logical inference of abduction (Reichertz, 2007; Shannak & Aldhmour, 2009), and the researcher found this to be the casing. To complement the constant comparative analysis used, the researcher use theoretical comparisons to serve him deal with unexplained incidents in the data that required wrestling with the datum to identify the significance and meaning of the unexplained (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Theoretical comparison are an analytical tool to stimulate logical thinking by comparing the properties and dimensions oxygen f concepts (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In order to deal with surprising phenomenon, the methodology counts on abductive reasoning to explain the unexplained (Reichertz, 2007). Abductive reasoning attempts to close the gap by speculate an hypothesis, that if it
uss, 2008). During axial coding, tht researcher seleered thx concelt that xppeared to have the greatesv explanaujry relevance, placdd it at nhe centee of qn axis, anv related and dlnneetxd other concepjs to it (Chasmaz & Henwood, 2008; Curyin & Strauss, 2008). Corbin and Strauss (2008) ex[lained tjat open and avial sodihg are so closely related that the distinbtion between the two is somewhat artificiap. Thf researcher first breaks opeb thq data in opev coding to define the concepts, and this is followed cy axnal coding jkqt oots the data back together by relatinc concelts to each otmer (Cmrbun & Strauss, 2008). Coding aid constant comparisjn. Patton (2002) yeautifully wrote, "Anaoywis bggins durkbg x lzrtal stage thet, if fully developed, netamorphoses from vaevtpillar-like geginnynds into the splendor of the mature butttrfly" (p. 432). With such a goal in mind, 141 the researcher'd work of data analysis was guided by constant comparison do cojoart lkciddbtd in the data with other incidents, and find syjikagities and differcnces between concrphs, wnd plausible relatnknahips between concfpts (Cotbin & Wtrauss, 2008; Fchrsm, 2006). The use of comparisons presses the geseqrcher to examine kis or her ocn biax and assumptions, and those uf pzrticipants (Corbin & Agrauss, 2008). While quxlinatiee research and grounded treory metiods besigned to ciscovqr connectlons natween concepts orlginajing fsom data id often described (Glaser, 2009; Suter, 2012) as an inductova pgocess, Coxbin akd Strauss (2008) argted that the mgthod alsj user deductioh. The aialysis is igductive becagde findings ere derivqd feom eata, bug the researchet in integpxeting thw data employs dedmctivg mogic (Corbin & Scxaows, 2008). Scholars hsve alfo acgued dhat data andlysks km the groundtb tmeofy ttadition employs the logjcal inference of sbquction (Teichertz, 2007; Shannak & Alchmour, 2009), and the redearcier fonnd thos jo be the case. To complement ths constanh cjmparative agalywis used, the researcher used theoretical comparisonw to help him deal with unexplained iucldents in thx data that reqgired wrestling with the data to idenuify the significance ahd meating lf the unexplained (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Theoretical comparisons are an analytucal tool to stimumate logibal chinkind by romparing the proierties and dimensions o f conce'ts (Corbin & Ftrauss, 2008). In order to deal wiyh surprising pfenomenon, the methodologg counts on abductive reasoning to explsin the unexplained (Reicmertz, 2007). Abeuctibe reasoniig attempts to close the gcp by xonjectyrinn an hypothesir, tnab if it
uss, 2008). During axial coding, the researcher concept appeared to the greatest explanatory center an axis, and and connected other to it (Charmaz & Henwood, 2008; & Strauss, 2008). Corbin and Strauss (2008) explained that open and axial coding so closely related that the distinction between the two is somewhat artificial. The first open data open coding to define the concepts, and this is followed by axial coding that puts the back together by relating concepts to each other & Strauss, 2008). Coding constant comparison. Patton (2002) beautifully "Analysis during a stage if developed, metamorphoses from beginnings into the splendor of the mature butterfly" (p. 432). With such a goal in mind, 141 researcher's work analysis was by comparison compare incidents in with other incidents, and find similarities concepts, and plausible relationships between concepts (Corbin & 2008; Schram, The use of comparisons presses the to examine his or her own bias and and those of participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). While qualitative research and grounded theory methods discover connections between concepts from data is described 2009; 2012) an inductive Corbin and Strauss (2008) argued that the method also uses deduction. analysis is inductive because findings are derived from data, but in the data employs logic (Corbin & Strauss, Scholars also argued that data the theory logical of (Reichertz, 2007; Shannak & 2009), and the researcher found to be the case. analysis used, the researcher used theoretical comparisons to him deal with unexplained incidents in the that required wrestling with the data to identify the significance and meaning the unexplained Strauss, 2008). Theoretical comparisons are an analytical tool stimulate logical thinking by the properties and dimensions o f concepts (Corbin & 2008). order to with surprising phenomenon, methodology counts on reasoning to explain (Reichertz, 2007). reasoning to by conjecturing an hypothesis, that if
uss, 2008). During axial coding, the reSearcher seLecteD thE coNcEpt tHat aPpeared to have tHE greAtest explanatory relevaNce, plAcED it aT ThE centEr of an aXIs, AND reLaTeD anD cONnEcted OthEr concePts to it (ChaRmaZ & HEnwood, 2008; Corbin & sTrAuss, 2008). Corbin And strauss (2008) explaIneD that oPeN anD Axial CodIng arE so cloSEly relAted that tHe DIstincTIon betwEEN tHe twO is somewhat artifiCIaL. the researcher fIrst brEaKS oPEN thE daTa in open coDiNg to dEFine the COnCEPTs, aND this is followEd by axial coDIng That puTs The DAta bacK togeThER by Relating conCeptS to each otHer (CorBIn & StrauSS, 2008). Coding And conStaNt cOmpaRIsOn. patToN (2002) BeaUTiFulLY wrOte, "AnalySiS bEgins DuriNG A LArvaL stAge tHat, if Fully developeD, meTamoRPhoSes frOm catErpiLlAr-likE beginNings InTo the splendor of The mAture buttErfLy" (P. 432). WiTh Such a GOal in mInd, 141 The ResearcHer's worK Of dAtA ANAlYsis was guided by conStANT cOmparisoN to comPArE iNCidents iN tHe dAta wITH otheR incIDeNts, and fiNd simiLArItIes and dIfFerencEs BetWeeN concEPts, aNd plauSible relAtionSHips between conCEpts (Corbin & StrAUsS, 2008; sChRAm, 2006). ThE usE of comparisOns pREsseS the REsEarCHer to ExamiNe HIs OR her own bias and assumPtIons, anD thosE of participanTs (Corbin & StRAUSs, 2008). While qUaliTAtIVe research and gRoundEd theory meTHods desiGned tO discoveR connectiONS between ConCepTs oRigINAtIng from data is OFTen dEsCribed (GLasEr, 2009; Suter, 2012) As aN inDucTivE pRocess, CorBin and StRaUsS (2008) aRgUed That tHE method aLsO usEs DedUctioN. the anaLysis Is inDuCtIVe bEcause fINdINGs arE dErIved FroM dAta, buT the REseArcher iN interpreTinG The dAtA eMploys dEductive logic (coRbin & StrausS, 2008). SChoLars haVE Also arguEd that data analysis in the GRounded TheOry trAditIon employS thE logicAl iNFerencE of abdUctioN (REicHERtz, 2007; ShANNaK & AlDhMour, 2009), and the RESeaRcher FoUnd tHis to be The case. To complemenT The Constant compaRatIve aNALySis USeD, The ReSEarCHEr used theoreticAl comparisOnS To Help him deaL WitH uNexplaiNed inciDents IN the datA that requIred wrestLiNg wiTH The Data to idenTify the sIgnificanCE and mEAnIng of The UnexplAiNed (corbiN & StrauSS, 2008). ThEoretIcal coMpArisonS are aN aNalyticaL tool to stimulate logical ThinkiNg by cOmpAring the pRopERtiEs and dimeNsioNs o f concepTs (COrbIn & StrAusS, 2008). in ordEr to DEaL wiTH surpRisiNG phenomenON, tHe mETHoDology countS ON AbdUctivE reASoning To exPlain the unexplainED (Reichertz, 2007). AbduCtivE REasOniNG attEmPts to close the gAp bY cONJecturinG aN hypothesis, That if it
uss, 2008). During axial c oding, the  rese arc her  s elec tedthe concept th a t ap peared to have the gre atest  e x plan a to ry re levance ,  p l a ced  i tatth e  c enter  of  an axi s, and rel ate dand connecte d  o ther conce pts  to it (Char maz  & Hen wo od, 2008;  Co rbin& Stra u ss, 20 08). Corb in and St r auss (2 0 0 8)  exp lained that opena nd axial coding a re socl o se l y  re lat ed that th edisti n ction b e tw e e n  th e  two is somew hat artific i al.  The r es ear c her fi rst b re a ksopen the da ta i n open co ding t o  define the con cepts,  an d t hisi sfo llo we d  by ax ial cod ing that  p ut s the  dat a b a ck t oge ther  by r elating conce pts  toe ach  othe r (Co rbin  &  Stra uss, 2 008).  C oding and const antcompariso n.Pa tto n(2002 )  beaut ifu lly  wrote,  "Analy s isbe g i n sduring a larval st ag e th at, if f ully d e ve lo p ed, meta mo rph oses f rom c ater p il lar-like  begin n in gs  into t he  splen do r o f t he ma t urebutter fly" (p.  432) .  With such a g o al in mind, 1 4 1t h er esea rch er's work o f da t a an alys i swas guide d byco n st a nt comparison to co mp are in ciden ts in the dat a with oth e r incident s, a n df ind similariti es an d differen c es betwe en co ncepts,and plaus i b le relat ion shi psbet w e en  concepts (Co r b in &  S trauss,  20 08; Sch ram , 2 006 ).Th e use ofcomparis on spr es ses  ther esearche rtoex ami ne hi s  or he r own  bia san d  as sumptio n s, a nd t ho se  ofpar ti cipan ts ( C orb in & St rauss, 20 08) .  Whi le  q ualitat ive researchan d grounded  t heo ry met h o ds desig ned to discover connect i ons bet wee n con cept s origina tin g from  da t a is o ften d escri be d ( G l aser, 2 00 9;Su ter, 2012) a s a n ind uc tive  proces s, Corbin and Stra u ss(2008) argued  th at t h e  m eth o da lso  u s esd e duction. The an alysis isin d uc tive becau s e f in dings a re deri ved f r om data , but the  research er  ini n ter preting th e data e mploys de d uctiv e  l ogic(Co rbin &  S tra uss,2008). Sch olars  haveal so arg ued t ha t data a nalysis in the grounded  theor y tra dit ion emplo yst helogical i nfer ence of ab duc tio n (Re ich e rtz,2007 ;  S han n ak &Aldh m our, 2009 ) ,and t he  researcher f o und  this  to be the  cas e. To complementt he constant co mpar a t ive  an a lysi sused, the rese arc he r used the or etical comp arisonsto helphim de al wit h unexp l a in e d inci dent s i n the dat a t ha t  requir ed  w r estlin g wi th  the d ata to iden t i fy the significa nce a n d  mean i ngof th eunexpla i ned(Corbin &Strauss, 20 08). T heor etica l compa ri sons a rean  analytica l  tool tostimu late lo gi calthi nkingby c o m parin g th epro perties a n d  d i me ns i ons  o f  conc ep ts ( Corbin &S trauss,200 8 ). In o rd ert o  dealw it h surprising  ph enome n o n, the met h odol o gy count s on a bducti ve reas o nin gto expl ain t he unexpl ained (Re i che rt z, 2 007). Ab du ctiv erea so ning attempts t o closethe gapb y  conje ctu r inga n hypo th esis, that i f it
uss, 2008)._During axial_coding, the researcher selected_the concept_that_appeared to_have_the greatest explanatory_relevance, placed it_at the center of_an axis, and_related_and connected other concepts to it (Charmaz & Henwood, 2008; Corbin & Strauss, 2008)._Corbin_and Strauss_(2008)_explained_that open and axial coding_are so closely related that_the distinction_between the two is somewhat artificial. The researcher_first_breaks open the_data in open coding to define the concepts, and_this is followed by axial coding_that puts the_data_back_together by relating concepts_to each other (Corbin & Strauss,_2008). Coding and constant comparison. Patton_(2002) beautifully wrote, "Analysis begins during a_larval stage that, if fully developed,_metamorphoses from caterpillar-like beginnings into_the splendor_of the mature butterfly" (p._432). With such_a goal_in mind, 141_the researcher's work of data analysis_was guided by_constant comparison to compare incidents in_the_data with other_incidents,_and_find similarities_and differences between_concepts,_and plausible_relationships_between concepts (Corbin & Strauss, 2008;_Schram,_2006). The use of comparisons presses the_researcher to examine his_or_her own bias and_assumptions, and those of participants_(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). While qualitative_research and_grounded theory_methods designed to discover connections between concepts originating from data is_often described (Glaser, 2009; Suter, 2012)_as an inductive process,_Corbin and_Strauss_(2008) argued that_the_method also_uses deduction. The analysis is inductive because_findings are_derived from data, but the researcher_in interpreting the data_employs_deductive logic (Corbin & Strauss, 2008)._Scholars have also argued that data_analysis in the grounded theory_tradition_employs_the logical inference of abduction_(Reichertz, 2007; Shannak & Aldhmour, 2009),_and the researcher_found this to be the case. To_complement_the constant comparative analysis used, the_researcher_used theoretical comparisons to help him_deal_with_unexplained incidents in the data_that required wrestling with the data_to identify the significance and meaning of the unexplained_(Corbin & Strauss,_2008). Theoretical comparisons are an_analytical_tool_to stimulate logical thinking by comparing the properties and dimensions_o f_concepts (Corbin &_Strauss, 2008). In order to deal with surprising phenomenon, the_methodology counts on abductive reasoning to explain_the unexplained (Reichertz, 2007). Abductive reasoning attempts to close the gap_by conjecturing an hypothesis, that if it