Qualitative_data_analysis

SPLITTING AND SPLICING 155
Although we noted that not all fixed images are stereotypes, we didn’t spell out
any criteria for distinguishing between ‘fixed’ and ‘unduly fixed’ images; nor did we
figure out how to categorize any data which fitted the former rather than the latter.
Also, many of the databits assigned to temperament and to occupational
characteristics ‘other than task’ do seem stereotypical—our dentists are poor, moody
and volatile. As our databits often relate to temperament as well as task, perhaps the
stereotypical element in the former has coloured our interpretation of the latter?
We can see now how first impressions combined with indirect support from
related evidence could lead to our interpretation of the category ‘task’ as an aspect of
stereotyping. By retracing our steps, reviewing our definitions and reassessing our
category assignments, we give ourselves the space to reflect critically upon this
interpretation, and if need be to modify or discard it.
This reinterpretation of the category ‘task’ as dealing with occupational
differences rather than occupational stereotypes has wider implications for our
analysis. It shifts our attention from substance to style. Instead of invoking or
depending on stereotypical images, the databits assigned to the category ‘task’ rely
rather on the absurd results of transposing characteristics from one occupation to
another. It is through the incongruity of these images that Woody Allen achieves his
humorous effects.
Before we consider the implications of this reassessment, let us consider how we
can choose between rival interpretations of the data. Our first interpretation was
sufficiently plausible that we could work with it over a period, and yet we now want
to discard it in favour of one which may give a quite different tenor to our results.
Perhaps at this point we might be tempted to curse qualitative data analysis and
invoke a plague on all interpretations. On the other hand, we may derive some
confidence from the fact that we have been able to discriminate between different
interpretations. By confronting the evidence critically, by making our categories and
decisions as explicit as possible, and by retaining scepticism even with regard to
categories central to our analysis, we have given ourselves the space to review and
recant. We have not simply looked for confirmation of our initial categories by
accumulating as much evidence as possible in their support. In short, when we
review our categories in the light of our retrievals, we should be looking for
confrontation with the data rather than confirmation of our categories.
If we accept this reinterpretation, then we have to modify our analysis
accordingly. First we have to review all the databits assigned to the sub-categories of
stereotype, to distinguish those which are stereotypical from those which are not.
This will require us to be more precise about what we mean by a ‘stereotype’ and
what criteria we can use for assigning the databits to the different categories. Thus we
may distinguish between stereotypical and non-stereotypical images in terms of
whether or not the assumption involved is reasonable. For example, it is not