Analysis
We assigned different roles to researchers to increase our ability to
analyze case evidence in multiple iterations from divergent viewpoints
(Eisenhardt, 1989). To record our observations and enfold them with
extant theories, we made extensive use of memos (Lempert, 2007). First,
we wrote 17 single-spaced pages of field notes beginning in March 2020
(Van Maanen, 2011). Second, we wrote 31 single-spaced pages of memos
while analyzing secondary documents for each case. Third, we wrote 77
single-spaced pages of additional memos on topics such as the sampling
process, interview insights, potential themes and variables emerging
from the data, data collection and analysis procedures, and relevant
literature.
Structured analysis of our interview data proceeded in two ways. First,
we analyzed the quantitative and textual data provided through
Qualtrics. We generated a database of responses encompassing Likert
scales (e.g., How well did the types of PPE produce match what
recipients needed? Where 1=very poor match, and 5=very good match),
dates (e.g., first involvement in PPE production), raw numbers (e.g.,
amount of PPE produced), percentages (e.g., percentage of PPE provided
to different types of recipients) and lists of organizations and names
people interacted with. While statistical analysis of this data was not
appropriate due to the sample size, this approach allowed us to capture
comparable data in clear categories while also applying techniques from
network studies, such as a name generator (Burt, 2011). This approach
enabled us to analyze network ties and interactions as well as to create
case history timelines in combination with dates found in secondary
documents.
Second, we imported and categorized interview transcripts in NVivo for
coding and constant comparative analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989). We engaged
in open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), reading the data line by line
to generate 147 codes. Interim findings were discussed within the author
team, helping us identify 59 additional codes related to two main themes
that emerged: resourcefulness and legitimacy. Codes were then
categorized into first order concepts and second order theoretical
themes. From this process, we derived aggregate theoretical dimensions
that include resource constraints, legitimacy deficits, network
emergence and evolution, learned resourcefulness, and learned
legitimation. As the final step in our analysis, we developed a
theoretical model of these dimensions and their relationships.
Throughout these steps, we continually revisited the literature to
identify prior constructs and explanations of relationships related to
our emergent findings. See Appendix C for additional analysis details.