Qualitative_data_analysis

122 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
selection for us. Incidentally, this facility makes the use of ‘codes’ in place of
categories rather redundant. The rationale for using codes is to abbreviate category
names and so reduce to a minimum the task of writing (or typing) out long names.
The drawback is the loss of intelligibility. Such codes are no longer required,
although there may still be some virtue in abbreviating category names to make
them shorter, providing they remain intelligible.
Another software facility to support the process of categorization is ‘linking’
through Hypertext procedures. We shall consider the use of Hypertext ‘linking’ to
analyse substantive relations within the data in a later chapter. Meantime, we should
note that linking can give us immediate access to information which may be useful
in assigning categories. For example, suppose we have a ‘dictionary’ containing
conceptual ‘definitions’ of the categories we are using. By ‘linking’ the categories in
our list to the categories in our dictionary the computer can give us direct access to
our current definition for any category. We can also locate empirical examples of
bits of data which we have previously assigned to the category. Both of these
contribute to the meaning of our category, and the ability to review quickly the
current definition and previous assignations of any category can help make
categorization a more efficient and reliable process.
Let us turn now to some of the conceptual issues which arise when we assign
categories to the data. The first question we encounter involves deciding what
constitutes a ‘bit’ of data. Again, there is no ‘right’ answer to this question. We may
want to categorize words, lines, sentences or paragraphs. Sometimes computer
software may limit our options, for example where bits of data are identified
through line numbering rather than free selection within the text. Whatever we
decide, we should aim for some consistency in the size of the bits we categorize,
especially if we want to assess later the weight of evidence supporting our analysis by
considering the number of bits we have assigned to a category. At the same time, we
need to be flexible, and take account of the varying character of the data. A long
sentence may contain more ‘bits’ than a short paragraph. Grammar can only serve as
a rule-of-thumb guide to selecting bits. Since ideas can be expressed succinctly or
expansively, the number of words is less important than the meaning they convey.
The underlying consideration should be the relevant ‘unit of meaning’ which is
conveyed by content rather than form. Does the bit of data present an intelligible
and coherent point which is in some sense self-sufficient, even if we cannot fully
grasp its meaning out of context? We may look for natural breaks and transitions
within the data—often but not invariably reflected in its grammar—which
distinguish one ‘unit of meaning’ from another. This process of breaking up the
data is inevitably to some extent arbitrary. But just as we would look askance at a
jigsaw puzzle where some of the pieces were very small and some very large, so we