Coding process

Grounded theory is built on coding which refers to “the analytic processes through which data are fractured, conceptualized, and integrated to form theory” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 3).

Therefore, utilizing this method, data are analysed through “concepts” that are the basic unit of analysis. Conceptualising refers to the action of label words and sentences according to the researcher’s subjectivity about their meaning in the context considered. In this process of abstraction, concepts are organised under bigger categories of phenomena that can be interconnected within each other. Concepts and categories achieve validity in the process, meaning that only the significant concepts and categories will be considered as exemplifying for a wider phenomenon, being suitable to form theory. The researchers analyse data through continuous comparison of concepts, and the concepts are grouped together and reallocated to different categories multiple times during the coding process. Similarly, when researchers find some differences in concepts, existing categories could be divided in order to count all the divergences in the phenomenon. This abstraction of data in categories, defined as “the cornerstones of a developing theory” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 7), and their integration into existing theory are made possible by an analytic process called “coding” (Seidel & Urquhart, 2013).

6.2.1 First stage: manual analysis

Once the first stage of data collection, namely individual interviews, was completed, the authors started to manually identify some similarities, differences and general themes among the ten interviews. This means that after transcribing and reading the interview transcripts, the authors started grouping together topics of discussion that were recurrent among them. Particularly a colour coding has been used, meaning that each topic was underlined with a different colour to have a clearer visual overview.

However, the aim of this stage was not to design detailed categories and codes ready to contribute directly to the creation of new theory. Instead, the purpose was to find topics that were frequently occurring and similar or divergent views among interviewees that were estimated valuable for a further investigation. Particularly, this first manual analysis was meant

to create questions for the focus group that would promote interaction among interviewees on topics that emerged from more interviews, also to provide an approximate structure to the focus group and ensure that the researchers had a plan towards topics of interest in case the discussion went off topic.

6.2.2 Second stage: open, axial and selective coding

A second stage of data analysis following the Grounded Theory, described above, has been conducted for both semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The aim of these analysis was to find similarities and differences among the dimensions of Brand Authenticity and Brand Equity at a combined level. To do so, the researchers created two shared Excel files (one dedicated to current customers and one for prospect customers), with the aim of grouping the quotes of interviews and focus groups (see intra 11.5 Coding Tables, Appendix). Both files have been structured as follow:

o In the columns, all the interviewees of both semi-structured interviews and focus groups were positioned, with two columns each. In the first column, a 0, a 1 or a “n/a” was put to define whether the influence of an attribute on the considered dimension was present or not. The 0 represents the absence of influence, the 1 stands for the presence of influence, while the “n/a” means that the participant have not given any answer. The second column has been used for significant quotes regarding that topic;

o The rows have been dedicated to the codes below described. Each Brand Authenticity dimension (heritage, quality, sincerity and craftsmanship) has a dedicated section. An additional section for Authenticity in general has also been created. Each of those was split in different categories, as illustrated in the Appendix (see intra 11.5 Coding Tables, Appendix). Some of these codes (e.g. Engagement) were usually repeated for all the dimensions to test the link between the dimension at hand and all the Brand Equity attributes. Other codes were specific for each dimension (e.g. Importance of the year of foundation in Heritage).

With this table at hand and with all the quotes belonging to a category, the authors have developed the grounded theory approach by hand. More specifically, coloured post-its and whiteboards where used to link the quotes to open, axial and selective codes. A more detailed idea of the grounded theory approach is explained in the following, with a schematic example

for each code. Thus, according to Corbin & Strauss (1990), three layers or types of coding are suggested to respect the grounded theory approach: Open, Axial and Selective Coding.

Open coding

Open coding is “the analytic process through which concepts are identified and their properties and dimensions are discovered in data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 101).

In this first stage of coding, the authors tried to link each sentence to concepts, allowing the researchers to gain insights from the data. Each concept was carefully inspected and compared with the others to find potential similarities or differences. In addition, each concept was labelled and broadly grouped together with complementary views to form categories and subcategories to be furthered analysed (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). As it has been explained in the Methodology (see intra 4.1.3 Philosophical Consideration), the present study follows an interpretivist doctrine, meaning that the participants’ responses are influenced by their interpretation of the reality in a social context and the researchers, in turn, interpret the participants’ responses. Therefore, in order to not bias the results and to increase the external validity, the authors decided to do this open coding process separately and compared afterwards the results.

According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), there are many ways in which one can approach open coding. For this research, open coding has been executed by examining a single sentence at a time, having the idea to mark it accordingly and to relate it to a concept. However, if there were sentences too long that were including more than one main idea, these were treated as different sentences. This approach to open coding was chosen as it allowed to have predetermined categories after which the concepts can be labelled (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For this study, the categories were decided in order to be aligned with the literature review.

In the following table, an example of open coding is visible.

Table 4. Open coding example

Open coding Sample quote

Curiosity "I can have a look for my curiosity"

Following the brand on SoMe "I am a follower of Louis Vuitton even on social media”

Source: Own representation

Axial coding

The second stage of coding, axial coding, refers to “the process of relating categories to their subcategories, termed ‘axial’ because coding occurs around the axis of a category, linking categories at the level of properties and dimensions” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 123). It is crucial at this stage to delineate the difference between a category and a subcategory. A category is linked to a phenomenon that is significant whereas a subcategory answers questions about the different phenomenon identified. Subcategories allow to give a deeper explanation to the different concepts (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During this stage, the relationships between the categories and the subcategories have been tested and verified in the data, together with a further development of potential categories. The axial coding resulted in less categories and these main categories were considered to be better linked to the research question.

In the following table, an example of Axial coding is visible.

Table 5. Axial coding example

Axial coding Open coding Sample quote

Behaviour Curiosity "I can have a look for my curiosity"

Following the brand on SoMe "I am a follower of Louis Vuitton even on social media”

Source: Own representation

Selective coding

The final stage, selective coding, refers to “the process of integrating and refining the theory”

(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 143). At this stage, the categories were hold or cut according to their relevance, allowing the authors to build the theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In this case, these core categories were directly connected to the research question, which aimed to answer how Brand Equity could be influenced by Brand Authenticity within the luxury world. Once the theory was built, it was validated by comparing it to the data collected, which ensured that the larger concepts could be found and were based on real data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

In the following table, an example of selective coding is visible.

Table 6. Selective coding example

Selective coding Axial coding Open coding Sample quote

Engagement Behaviour Curiosity "I can have a look for my curiosity"

Following the brand on SoMe

"I am a follower of Louis Vuitton even on social media”

Source: Own representation

In the following, Figure 11 well summarise the second stage of the data analysis.

Figure 11. Overview of the second stage

Source: Own representation based on Strauss & Corbin, 1998

6.2.3 Third stage: from selective coding to theoretical dimensions

Once the data from the focus groups and individual interviews were analysed according to the above presented coding method, the authors were ready to connect the final categories to the dimensions of Brand Equity in order to answer at the research question. An example is depicted in Table 7.

Table 7. Example of integration of selective coding into Brand Equity dimensions

Dimension Selective coding Axial coding Open coding Consumer Brand

Resonance

Engagement Behaviour Curiosity

Following the brand on SoMe Source: Own representation