After 11 interviews, the preliminary categories and the emerging theory were discussed by all co-authors and at a seminar with researchers from different disciplines/professions.
Together, the authors discussed the content and boundaries of the preliminary categories.
First, FM, MV, and DH coded the same sources of data (the 86 articles) and identified the preliminary categories.
Through comparison within and between the preliminary categories, both the grouping and the names of the categories were adjusted until the categorization gave a fair representation of the data.
The next step involved asking questions about what was going on and making constant comparisons between and within the preliminary categories to see if the categories were well described.
At the same time, constant comparisons between and within the preliminary categories were made to see if the categories were well described and to make rearrangements if needed for a better understanding of the processes in the data material.
Based on existing literature and reviews of the interviews, preliminary categories were developed.
On the basis of (1) and (2) the most prominent issues in women's answers were identified and transferred to a preliminary category system, considering the following criteria: each category should be broad enough to include as much information as possible, so that a reasonable picture of women's answers could be given.
In the process of creating preliminary categories, the following aspects were taken into consideration: the number of times the subject came up, the number of people who discussed the topic, the intensity of the conversation around the topic as well as the group's interaction around the topic.
A pre-analysis was done with an initial reading of the participants' answers and the formulation of preliminary categories according to their content.
Thereafter, the substantive codes were interpreted further to explain larger segments of the data; 28 29 this resulted in the development of preliminary categories.
