172 Chapter 4 the main researcher and his supervisors. Access to the partly coded minutes and transcripts was also provided, for a short period of time, to one of the members of the conversational community and DCU’s research centre. This was done to enable the participant to perform part of the coding process and provide feedback on the process itself. After this work was done, access to the data was removed for this participant. 4.5 ANALYSIS OF DATA The quantitative data were presented to the conversational community and then interpreted and discussed by it. Sometimes, this was performed between the two teams; at other times, the insider and outsider teams had separate discussions. In the latter case, their interpretations and conclusions were compared in subsequent plenary sessions. In this way, a rich theological conversation was stimulated within the conversational community. The text of the minutes and partial transcripts of these conversations were coded after the approbation of the conversational community (with the help of Atlas. ti), initially through open coding with provisional codes (Miles et al., 2020). Afterwards, two more layers of codes were added: one indicating where the four different voices can be recognised in the text and one with three central conceptual codes (Miles et al., 2020). The conceptual codes followed a pattern that was found and established by the conversational community during its 14th meeting (7 February 2023), when an overview of the topics and headlines that had been discussed was studied. This triad was accepted by the conversational community and declared helpful for organising further meetings and discussions: subjectifying education, epistemological formation and attitude formation. The interpretation of data became a three-phase process. The data gathered from the above-mentioned additional data sources and concrete ideas for DCU’s teacher training were brought to the conversational community’s meeting and became part of the back-and-forth movement between vision, intentions, design and practice, as well as the conversation of the four theological voices. The second step involved the coding and subsequent analysis of the conversational community’s minutes and transcripts. The process of coding by the main researcher was controlled and evaluated by one of the members of the insider group who has a master’s degree in education. He did 15 percent of the coding by himself and then provided feedback to the main researcher about his evaluation of the ongoing coding process (an overview of the codes and code groups is provided in Appendix 4). The third step involved
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw