Table 2 The process of analysis to understand service users’ accounts of the need for anonymity

1.

ATLAS.ti coding

To recognise all the episodes in which service users’ needs for anonymity were discussed

A total of 53 episodes (37 in interviews, 16 in naturally occurring online conversations)

2.

ATLAS.ti coding

To categorise the themes to which the need for anonymity was connected

Compiled in the results chapter (Table 3)

3.

ATLAS.ti coding

To identify various levels and forms of anonymity discussed in the data

1) The need for strong anonymity, effort to be untraceable;

2) The need for some degree of anonymity, effort to be unidentified: pseudonymous, faceless and/or voiceless;

3) No need for anonymity (this was left out of the detailed analysis, as we focus on the personal need for anonymity).

4.

Detailed interaction analysis

To develop a nuanced understanding of

A) the connection between contextual relations and the need for anonymity and

B) how the service users accounted for their needs for anonymity

The service users gave both excusing and justifying accounts of their needs for anonymity, with the former being more common. We connected these accounts to the following contextual relations:

1) Excusing the need for anonymity by referring to societal relations: blaming Finnish society for stigmatising attitudes and exclusionary practices

2) Excusing the need for anonymity by referring to service system relations: blaming the service system for the risk of negative consequences due to recording the use of illicit drugs

3) Justifying and excusing the need for anonymity by referring to personal relations: appealing to personal situations, feelings and experiences

The Results chapter provides detailed analyses of the service users’ accounts under the subheadings indicated above. The first part of the heading represents the general connection between wider relations and the service user’s way of giving accounts. The second part reflects how this connection is concretised in the service users’ talk. The relations mentioned in the subheadings were generally reflected in the data, but they intertwined situationally with other relations (societal, service system, personal, spatial and time relations) in each service user’s talk.