Also, we did observations, including kitchen layout, fridge contents, behaviors, and interactions. Everything fixated in observation log, and then also two of us took photos on the fridge and kitchen.
During transcriptions, for example, also we tried to include subcontext explanations, and we didn't fix grammar to closely represent what was said.
And we basically adhered to grounded theory steps, which is open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and also we did inductive approach method. We wrote memos and constantly compared with the data.
Our attention was not only on the perceptions of the living environment role in the food waste, which is specifically our research question, but we also tried to notice context, conditions, respondent background, and their emotions.
During the coding process we had in taguette 95 tags, and 304 highlights initially. 46 code grandchild codes, ~20 parent codes, ~4 grandparent codeas.
There was some discrepancies from the suggested steps.
For example, everyone read only their own interview during initial step because we thought that it would be better to the minimize the biases.
During open coding was we saw someone use very specific code names, someone more generic. And also we used multiple codes for the same code, for the same phenomenon.
Then we did pairwise code comparison and refinement. And finally during the group-wide code book discussion emerged four bigger categories with single narrative that further my colleagues will explain.
