APPLIED COACHING RESEARCH JOURNAL 2020 , Vol . 6 perceived had caused the participant ’ s adverse concern or worry , or had the potential to do so , being coded as stressors . Verbalisations , whereby participants attempted to manage a stressor , were coded as coping strategies . The analysis then followed an inductive process where the first author read all transcripts of Think Aloud in the NVivo software ( step 1 ). Once complete , the first author developed a list of codes from the first two transcripts . At this stage , the initial codes were reviewed and considered by the second author ( step 2 ). This collaborative coding approach is supported by Saldana ( 2013 ) as it allows a ‘ dialogic exchange of ideas ’ that support interrogation and discussion from multiple perspectives . From the initial inductive process , codes were grouped into stressors and coping , and Lazarus and Folkman ’ s ( 1984 ) coding of emotion , problem and avoidancefocused coping was used in a deductive way to allocate the initial inductive ‘ coping responses ’ into these ‘ umbrella ’ coping categories . This inclusion of Lazarus and Folkman ’ s ( 1984 ) coping responses was a result of the second author ’ s involvement in the analysis process , where they linked previous theory to initial generated themes .
These deductive codes were then used as a starting point to analyse the remaining transcripts . However , as the first author identified new codes , they were also included in the analysis , and again they were considered and reviewed by the second author . Once all transcripts were analysed , a further review was conducted by the authors ( step 4 ). Once complete and consistent with the potential limitations of inter-rater reliability as highlighted by Smith and McGannon ( 2018 ), a different researcher ( outside the author team ) acted as a critical friend to ensure data collection and analysis were plausible and defendable ( step 5 ; Smith and McGannon , 2018 ). Following this refining and naming of themes , the findings were produced ( step 6 ) and are presented in the results section . It is important to note that this was a process of critical dialogue between authors . Rather than to agree or disagree to achieve consensus , the critical friend encouraged reflexivity by challenging the first author ’ s construction of knowledge ( Cowan and Taylor , 2016 ).
© Steve Scott / Shutterstock . com
23