Similar to what was done to achieve Cone 1, the data set was analysed - in the first instance - to find data relevant to what participants 'got out of' attending their men's group. Thus the entire data set was searched for information connected with the structures and processes within men's groups and how they interacted with research participants and reasons for them joining men's groups. This data was subsequently extracted and is available to view HERE.
However, in contrast to second stage conducted on data relevant to queston 1, an inherent or 'grounded' 'backstory' by which to analyse Question 2 was not available. This presented a dilemma in the context of authentic - or verifiable - grounded research. In time this dilemma was resolved by yet another return to the research literature, a process and outcome that is fully explained HERE.
The analytic 'product' in respect of Question 2 data is the representation above, Cone 2. Cone 2 is an inversion of Cone 1 in an analytic and conceptual sense and also, of course, physically. The 'unbalanced' nature of Cone 2 - a figure incapable of standing independently - illustrates this unbalance and constrasts sharply with the stability, coherence and logic of Cone 1. A related characteristic of Cone 2 is its dependence on Cone 1 in a physical and by extension, a conceptual sense. In this sense, Cone 1 and Cone 2 are intrinsically connected and related. This connection between both cones is illustrated - and their relationship discussed HERE but for now core concepts that emerged from Question 1 data are explained and presented below.