88 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION Although valuable insights were gained, the process seemed too complex. Therefore, a clearer path was chosen by executing a content analysis enabling me to code the data properly. Philipp Mayring explains: “within the framework of qualitative approaches it would be of central interest, to develop the aspects of interpretation, the categories, as near as possible to the material, to formulate them in terms of the material.”222 Transcribing and rereading the interviews had made me familiar with their content already. Going through them again, I highlighted all passages relevant to the research question, noting keywords in the margins. These keywords formed the basis for codes on a more abstract level. Doing this with two interviews left me with a substantial and already quite coherent list of codes, which I used to code the other interviews, while remaining open to the possibility of new themes to emerge. In this phase, some codes were added or combined. These codes and the list of quotes produced through this analysis formed the basic structure and content of Chapters 4-8. Hence, the content and line of reasoning of these chapters emerged from the data through the inductive hermeneutical tool of the content analysis. The different sections of the chapters thus present the ‘grounded theologies’ as articulated by the monastics themselves. This approach produced some unanticipated insights. For example, I had expected intentions of ecumenical rapprochement to have played a more prominent role in the motivation of the monastics to join these particular communities. Instead, their narratives focus on the monastic common life itself, as section 4.1 makes clear. They also articulate far more nuanced and ambivalent views on the question of Eucharistic hospitality than anticipated. This illustrates the added value of qualitative research for the debate on this particular issue. The introductions to each of the Chapters 4-8 help the reader to grasp the content and coherence of the quotes and analysis that follow. In addition, a synthesis was added at the end of each chapter, connecting the established categories in a subsequent hermeneutic step. These syntheses, in turn, formed the basis for formulating the implications presented in part three, chapters 9 and 10, thereby taking the insights beyond the particular contexts of Bose and Taizé to the wider debate within Catholic theology about the place of Eucharistic sharing in the ecumenical process. 222 Mayring, “Qualitative Content Analysis.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw