Qualitative_data_analysis

144 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
but not essential that they must have a direct empirical reference. Being empirically
grounded does not mean that in a mechanical way there must always be empirical
instances for every category. A category can be relevant empirically if it reveals
something important about the data, even where empirical instances of that category
are few or even non-existent. At least in relation to particular categories, empirical
relevance does not require empirical instantiation.
Note that in subcategorizing the data, we have used distinctions which have not
been explicitly recognized or acknowledged by the subjects themselves. The
distinctions we have used are suggested by the data, but they are not drawn in the
data. Here again, empirical grounding should not be taken to mean some slavish
obligation to reproduce only those distinctions which are meaningful to actors as well
as analysts.
Though our subcategory list—arguably—makes sense conceptually and seems
relevant empirically, we have not considered whether it also makes sense
analytically, i.e. in terms of what we want from the analysis. Is there any point in
distinguishing these subcategories? Here we have to consider the broader thrust of
our analysis. Suppose we become interested in the interplay of the incongruous and
cathartic aspects of humour. Different aspects of ‘suffering’ may then acquire
significance because they allow a more detailed examination of the interplay between
the two. For example, the ‘knockabout’ image of Cézanne with instruments tied to
his wrists provides the element of incongruity which makes the knocked out teeth
humorous and therefore cathartic. In general, we may be more convinced that
cathartic and incongruous humour intertwine, if we can show that this point holds
for the different subcategories of torture as well as for the category as a whole.
Unless we can identify some analytic purposes of this sort, there is no point in
subcategorizing the data just for the sake of it. We should ‘play around’ with the
data, certainly, but by this stage our playing around should be informed by a more
definite sense of purpose.
Note that the subcategories we have identified are inclusive rather than exclusive.
In assigning one subcategory to the data, such as ‘discomfort’, we do not exclude the
possibility of also assigning either of the other subcategories. We should not assume
that subcategorizing involves the identification of logically distinct and mutually
exclusive and exhaustive categories. Although our distinctions are more likely to
approach this ideal, there is no reason to stipulate this as a requirement of
subcategorization. In so far as qualitative data analysis involves an initial exploration
of previously unconceptualized data, we may be modest in our expectations of what
can be achieved. It is perfectly in order to adopt a set of subcategories which, like our
categories before them, are designed to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Earlier I
suggested that the patient whose teeth are knocked out may suffer (potential)
disfigurement or even disability as well as (immediate) discomfort. Does it matter