INTRODUCTION TO SITUATIONAL ANALYSES

by Simon Moss

Introduction

Situational analyses, developed by Clarke (2003), is an extension of grounded theory, developed to accommodate the postmodern world. This methodology is often applied to analyse qualitative data, such as interviews. In essence, situational analyses involves the construction, and then application, of three diagrams or frameworks called

situational maps social world or arena maps, and positional maps.

Rather than define these diagrams or frameworks, this document will first illustrate these techniques and then discuss the rationale and application of these techniques in more detail.

Example

Research question

To illustrate situational analyses, consider the following example. In previous decades, many research candidates, especially PhD candidates, were able to secure a job in academia. In more recent decades, these academic roles have been scarce. So, research candidates often need to seek roles outside research. The question, then, is

how can universities help research candidates secure these roles? what are some of the barriers that prevent universities from assisting research candidates

effectively?

Methodology and methods

To conduct a situational analysis, you would initially conduct the activities that proponents of grounded theory recommend. For example, you might

interview the people who you feel are most likely to be informative, such as current research candidates, past employed research candidates, past unemployed research candidates supervisors, administrators, employers, and peak bodies

after each interview, you would assign a code—between 1 and 5 words, for example—to each segment of information, such as a sentence, called open coding

you would identify sets of codes that are related and might correspond to the same category you would contemplate the differences between codes that seem identical you would utilize this information to gradually refine the categories and consider the

relationships between categories—culminating in hypotheses about theories you would record, and update, memos about these codes, categories, and theories you would, over time, identify participants and develop questions to assess these hypotheses

and refine these theories

Situational maps

Once you have uncovered and analysed an array of codes, you can start to construct a diagram or framework called a situational map. To construct this map, you apply two phases. First, you record, haphazardly, all the human elements, nonhuman elements, and discursive elements that are relevant to the question you want to answer. These three kinds of elements are clarified and exemplified in the following table.

Element Recommendation Examples

Human Individuals Teams Organizations Institutions Subcultures

Research candidates Ex-research candidates Research administrators Supervisors Parents of research candidates Unions Employers Universities Accreditation bodies Recruitment agencies

Nonhuman Technologies Regulations and duties Strategies and goals

Job sites Government guidelines Peak body guidelines

Discursive Debates Ideas Assumptions Symbols

Prestige of academia Hierarchy of degrees Assumptions about the doctoral

title

Association between prestige and pay

Government funding of universities

Practical versus academic skills Value of scholarships

The following example shows illustrates how researchers tend to record these human, nonhuman, and discursive elements haphazardly—in a format that is sometimes called a messy situational map

Next, you could organize these human, nonhuman, and discursive elements under headings. You might use the headings that are utilized in the following example—an example of an ordered situational map—or might develop your own headings. These headings are merely designed to help researchers organize the various elements and prompt researchers to add elements they might have overlooked.

Example of an ordered situational map

Individual human elements Research candidates Ex-research candidates Research administrators Supervisors Parents of research candidates Employers

Nonhuman elements Job sites Government guidelines Peak body guidelines

Collective human elements Unions Universities Accreditation bodies Recruitment agencies

Silent or overlooked actors • Candidates who withdrew before they

completed their degree

Constructions of individual or collective elements

Key events that affected the situation• Suicide of a research candidate

Science research candidates Humanities research candidates Low and high socioeconomic research

candidates

Discursive constructions Association between prestige and pay

Political or economic elements• Concerns about an impending

recession• Promise to diminish spending

Symbolic elements Hierarchy of degrees Assumptions about the doctoral title

Temporal elements• Diminishing academic opportunities

for PhD candidates• Increasing numbers of PhD candidates

Spatial elements• External versus internal candidates

over time• Government funding of universities

has decreased

Major issues and debates• Practical versus academic skills: Which

is more useful to workplaces• Is academia prestigious or not

Related discourses• Value of scholarships

Finally, you would considers the relationship between each pair of elements. In particular, you might

• photocopy either the messy or organized situational map many times• on one copy, draw a line between two elements, such as supervisors and assumptions about the

doctoral degree• contemplate how these elements are related. For example, supervisors might assume that

doctoral degrees are not respected in industry, because these degrees were not as respected in previous decades

• continue to apply this procedure to every pair of elements• some pairs will generate no key insights; other pairs might generate vital insights.

As this example shows, situational maps help researchers consider all the key facets of some situation, circumstance, or topic. In addition, the map might then prompt the researcher to consider the association, nexus, or juxtaposition of distinct facets to unearth telling insights or theories. These maps, therefore, are

• primarily used to help the researcher analyze and interpret the data, but• can be used to display data in reports as well

Social world and arena maps

In contrast to situational maps, social worlds and arena maps are designed to characterize the actions of various collectives—such as movements, ideologies, clubs, associations, and so forth. Each social world comprises an array of individuals who are striving to achieve shared goals. These collections may be official, such as the Australian Council of Graduate Studies, or unofficial, such as “people who reject the scientific movement”. These maps characterize what Clarke calls the meso-level—a level between specific individuals and global, abstract institutions. In particular, these collectives, or social worlds, could include

• people who share the same political or economic ideology

• people who define themselves by a shared identity or demographic• people who debate a specific issue• people who share some expertise or knowledge• a formal organization, association, or business venture• the subgroups of these larger collectives, and so forth.

Specifically, you would derive these collectives or social worlds from the data, the codes, and their memos. You might initially generate a map that resembles the following example—a map that is incomplete. In this map

• each circle represents a collective or social world• circles within circles represent subgroups• overlapping circles signify social worlds that comprise some feature—such as members or

activities—in common• larger circles could represent more influential collectives or social worlds

You would then extend this map, striving to identify other social forces or worlds that could be striving to achieve some goal and affecting the issue—in this instance, the career prospects of research candidates. Then, after clarifying these social forces or worlds, you would ask yourself a series of questions about each collective, such as

• what is each social world striving to achieve?• what actions have these social worlds implemented in the past or plan to implement in the

future?• what are the impediments they experience?• what opportunities or resources do they offer the world?• how does this social world describe this collective as well as other collectives• how is the social world organized or coordinated• what technologies do these social worlds utilize to achieve their goals• how do distinct social worlds interact in some arena or issue

To answer these questions, you might scrutinize the data that have been collected or choose to collect more data. This analysis of social worlds, and the arenas in which they operate, offers several benefits. In particular, the researcher can

• apply a framework to underpin subsequent analysis and interpretations• identify conflicting social forces that might explain important barriers

Positional maps

The final set of diagrams or frameworks that Clarke recommended are called positional maps. In essence, positional maps summarize the various positions, stances, opinions, or attitudes that people can adopt on relevant issues or debates. Importantly, the positional maps do not necessarily specify which individuals, collectives, or organizations adopt each position: one of the assumptions of postmodern works is that every individual, collective, or organization could adopt many positions, depending on the time or circumstances. To construct a positional map, the researcher

• lists the main positions, stances, opinions, or attitudes expressed• identifies some concepts or dimensions that differentiate these positions• constructs a map to show how these positions are associated with these dimensions

To illustrate, consider the following positional map—a positional map that is incomplete but illustrates the main principles. As this map shows

• people can adopt a range of positions, such as believe that people with a PhD should be paid handsomely or a PhD is about learning rather than careers

• the various positions on this map, arguably, differ on two dimensions: the extent to which the position signifies a respect towards academia and the extent to which the position signifies the belief that some people should be granted more rewards than other people—called a hierarchy

• admittedly, other researchers might have identified two different dimensions.

Underlying philosophy

Situational analyses was designed to extend grounded theory to a postmodern ideology. To appreciate this postmodern ideology, you need to understand the movement of modernity. In particular, the first column in the following table lists some of the key features of modernity. The second column lists some of the key features of postmodern perspectives As this table shows

• the essence of modernity is that researchers, scholars, and artists sought to reduce the world to simple, rational principles

• in contrast, in the last few decades, researchers, scholars, and artists have begun to appreciate the complexities, contradictions, instability, and diversity that underpins life

• individuals who adopt a postmodern ideology strive to acknowledge, study, understand, and represent this complexity.

Modern priorities Postmodern priorities

Universality: scholars attempt to generate theories that are relevant to all culture and conditions

Localness: scholars attempt to explain local phenomena, recognising that each circumstance and community is unique

Diversity: scholars appreciate rather than overlook diversity

Generalization: scholars attempt to explain broad phenomenon

Fragmentation: scholars attempt to explain specific, isolated phenomenon

Simplification: scholars attempt to reduce complex phenomena into simple principles

Complications: scholars attempt to highlight and contemplate rather than dismiss and simplify complexities

Permanence: scholars attempt to generate theories or objects that will persist indefinitely

Instability: scholars recognize that phenomena and theories can change unpredictably

Rationality: scholars attempt to apply logic and empirical science to generate theories

Contradiction: scholars attempt to characterize and embrace contradictions—rather than dismiss contradictions as irrational

History of grounded theory

Grounded theory was originally developed to demonstrate that qualitative research can be applied to generate some objective truths about a phenomenon—a philosophy called positivism. Charmaz then developed a variant of grounded theory that assumes a constructivist philosophy. In particular

• constructivists dismiss the notion of one objective truth• constructivists instead assume that each person or collective develops a unique perspective—

and that researchers should strive to understand and appreciate these perspectives

Yet, constructivism diverges from postmodernism. Although constructivism recognizes that individuals and collectives might adopt distinct perspectives, this movement is not designed to highlight and represents the contradictions, instability, and complexities of these perspectives. In contrast, postmodern researchers deliberately attempt to study, to underscore, and to characterize these complexities. To fulfil this goal

• Clarke developed situational analyses—a series of tools that enables proponents of grounded theory to study, to explore, and to represent some of these complexities

• Clarke attempted to balance the need to appreciate these complexities with the need to generate insight rather than chaos

• These tools enable researchers to appreciate the nuances and complexities of a circumstance, called thick analyses, and to communicate these nuances and complexities, called thick description

Recommendations

When researchers conduct situational analyses, they can be somewhat creative: They do not need to follow a precise sequence of specific guidelines. After all, situational analyses are merely tools designed to stimulate thought rather than generate definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, Clarke recommends some practices that could enhance the utility of this method. The following table outlines these principles.

Practices to consider Details or examples

Record and modify memos as you develop the maps

That is, memos should complement the maps you construct

Include information that seems to be missing from the data

For example, sometimes, you notice that nobody mentioned a specific collective, technology, strategy, or position that seems obvious to the researcher. Researchers should include these unarticulated facets—and perhaps ask questions about these facets later

You do not have to be comprehensive For instance, you do not need to specify every human, nonhuman, or discursive element in the situational map—but only the details that seem to matter

You should consider the three kinds of maps together

For example, you might consider how the goals of a social world or collective might have generated specific positions—showing how the social world and positional maps could be utilized in combination.

For each map, begin with a messy version before you construct an ordered version

If you begin with an ordered version, you might inadvertently reach conclusions prematurely

Researchers should continue to refine and to improve these maps until they discover that additional data or codes no longer change these diagrams

That is, researchers should apply the principles of saturation to decide when they no longer need to refine the map.

Researchers should embrace rather than dismiss complications, contradictions, and confusion

Appendix: Introduction to grounded theory

If possible, before they attempt situational analyses, researchers should be familiar with grounded theory. This appendix thus imparts some key insights about grounded theory—or at least a specific variant called constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). Specifically, the following table outlines the key features, activities, and terms of constructivist grounded theory.

Key activity Details or examples

1 Decide on a broad research question and methodology

Your research questions might shift, either slightly or considerably, over time

• As you collect, code, analyse, and interpret data, you might experience a moment or epiphany in which you become intrigued by some issue or notion

• Your research should then revolve around the issue or notion that elicited these feelings

Decide on whether grounded theory is suitable to your circumstances

Grounded theory is especially suitable whenever you

• are willing to iteratively update your questions over time—and perhaps interview some of your participants more than once to clarify their answers

• want to understand and describe how some experience or event changes over time

• want to develop a novel theory rather than test previous theories, assumptions, or hypotheses

Typical research questions revolve around

• the circumstances or conditions that fostered some phenomenon—such as why people leave a terrorist group

• the strategies people initiated in response to this phenomenon—such as their actions after leaving this group

• the consequences of these strategies

2 Collect data to start to answer this question

You can utilize a range of methods to collect data

• Interviews are perhaps the most common source of data

• But, focus groups, observations, archives, and other sources of data are common as well

You should collect enough data to generate penetrating insights

Specifically, you should

• collect data from participants who adopt diverse perspectives about the same topic or issue

• collect data about different times—such as before, during, and after some event—to clarify how some phenomenon changes over time

• collect detailed descriptions rather than superficial responses

• ask questions about the personal musings and reflections of participants—and not only tangible actions

3 Code your data

Summarize each line—each sentence or response of participants—with one to five words, called open coding

• You should begin to code data as soon as possible—after the first interview, for example

• That is, when conducting grounded theory, you analyze the data as soon as possible—because this analysis can then shape the question you ask other participants

• The reason you should code each line separately is that you become more immersed in your data; consequently, your codes are not as likely to be biased by your preconceptions

After you generate a preliminary set of codes, you might then develop and apply broader codes to larger chunks of data

• Specifically, after you complete some open coding, you might develop some insights over which issues to prioritize

• As a consequence of this insight, you might realize some of your data corresponds to broader, abstract ideas, called focused coding

• These codes might apply to longer answers rather than isolated sentences

• You might even then apply these broader codes to data you have already coded

4 Develop categories and theories

Identify sets of related codes. These codes might be integrated to generate a broader concept, called a category

Record memos to describe the features of this category; these features are called properties

As you refine these categories, develop hypotheses about how these categories might be related to each other

• Record memos about how these categories may be related to each other—called axial coding

• For example, consider whether one category is a cause, strategy, or consequence of another category

A theory is simply an account of how these categories are related to each other

As the analysis evolves, identify the core category—the central issue or topic to which all the other categories are related

5 Continually wrrite memos—notes, musings, and hypotheses about your codes, categories, and theories

Apply the constant comparative method—in which you compare similar subsets of data to refine your codes and categories

• For example, several participants might indicate they “never think about their career”. But some of their other responses implies this phrase can imply confidence about their future, avoidance about their future, an attempt to avoid worry, and so forth.

• Hence, the researcher would write a memo that outlines the diverse meanings and facets of this code

Write memos informally and spontaneously—for personal use only

Memos should characterize fleeting thoughts, insights, and questions. Although you do not have to follow definitive rules, Charmaz recommends a

few practices

• Begin each memo with a title—perhaps simply the name of a code or category you want to define, clarify, or question

• Record the key properties or characteristics of each code or category

• If unsure what to write, perhaps elaborate on the codes that you utilized most frequently

• Refer to specific data and quotes as you write your memos

• Memos can be tangible and specific or vague and abstract

When writing memos, you should often compare different participants, times, categories, and so forth. For example, you might ask

• How do the beliefs or experiences differ between these participants?

• How did the opinions of one participant change over time?

• What are the key differences between related codes or categories?

6 Seek data to answer questions until you reach saturation

Update the questions you ask participants, primarily to test and to refine your categories and theories

• This tendency to seek participants and to ask questions that could test and refine your theories is called theoretical sampling

• That is, rather than recruit a random sample of participants, you should seek individuals who you feel could answer your questions and improve your theories most effectively

Continue to collect data until you have reached theoretical saturation—the point at which you no longer need to refine your categories or theories in response to additional data

7 Write the report

Write a narrative to explain how the theory explains the core phenomenon or category

This activity is called selective coding

References

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Sage

Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodernturn. Symbolic Interactionalism, 26(4), 553–-576.

For more detailed information, you should read the book that Clarke wrote also called “Situational analyses”. The key chapter—Chapter 3—“Doing Situational Maps and Analysis” is available for free on the internet and should be read in detail.