Qualitative_data_analysis

Figure 10.1 Levels of subclassification of the subcategory ‘suffering’
that our categories are not exclusive? No. What counts is whether we pick up all the
databits where we think there is an element of disfigurement, disability or
discomfort, or some combination of the three.
Within each of these subcategories, we may wish to develop a further set of
subcategories to accommodate still further distinctions within the data. For the
category ‘suffering’ we can easily identify several further levels of subclassification
(Figure 10.1).
There is no limit to the levels of analysis we can develop other than our ability to
draw distinctions between one databit and another. The more subcategories we use,
the more refined or ‘delicate’ (Bliss et al. 1983) our analysis. Since no two databits
are identical, there are always going to be differences between one databit and
another. There is virtually no limit, therefore, to the subcategories we could create
for analysing the data. However, we need only note those differences which are
conceptually relevant and practically useful from the point of view of further
analysis. Subcategorizing can let you see differences which would otherwise remain
buried or blurred; but too many distinctions can lead to unnecessary fragmentation
and loss of focus (Miles and Huberman 1984:222). The databits need only be
reorganized around our subcategories if this is going to make a difference to the
comparisons we can make within our sub-categories and between them and other
categories.
Issues in subcategorizing databits
• Do the subcategories make sense conceptually?
• Are they instantiated empirically?
• Are the subcategories empirically relevant?
• Are the subcategories useful practically?
• Do the subcategories look useful analytically?
SPLITTING AND SPLICING 145