Qualitative_data_analysis

156 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
Figure 10.7 Revising analysis with minimum disturbance
unreasonable to assume that an artist paints; but it is unreasonable to assume that an
artist is poor. It is not unreasonable to assume that an artist works sometimes out of
doors, but it is unreasonable to assume that an artist will be emotionally volatile. This
criterion allows us to differentiate between ‘fixed’ and ‘unduly fixed’ images.
Suppose we find that almost all the databits assigned to the category ‘task’ are not
stereotypical. We may decide to absorb those which do invoke stereotypes under
‘temperament’ and ‘occupational’ and discard the subcategories ‘task’ and ‘other
than task’ altogether. We also need to check that the databits assigned to the
category ‘temperament’ and ‘other than task’ all fit our stricter definition of a
stereotypical image.
We have to decide what to do with those residual databits which we no longer
want to characterize as stereotypical. We could create a new category or categories
for those databits which no longer ‘belong’ to the subcategories of stereotype. We
could create a new category ‘not stereotypes’, or simply call these ‘residual’ or
‘problem’ databits. Or, as they deal with differences between artists and dentists,
whether of temperament, occupation or task, we could simply create a new category
called ‘differences’. But we may want to recategorize them in some way, if only as a
temporary expedient, the alternative being to dispense with them altogether.
As the computer can identify all the databits assigned to our sub-categories, the
mechanics of recategorizing the data should be very straightforward, whether it
involves adding categories to databits or replacing old categories with new ones.
These are tasks which can be accomplished by the computer automatically once we
have made the relevant decisions. This leaves us free to concentrate on the wider
implications of our reinterpretation.
Suppose we try to map out the relationships between our new categories, and
consider their implication for our analysis overall (Figure 10.7). In particular, we
may ask what to do with our residual category, ‘differences’, and whether the
category ‘stereotypes’ retains the importance we attached to it in our analysis. How
should we integrate such newly coined or newly defined categories into our analysis?
A reflex reaction might prompt us simply to treat the categories ‘differences’ and
‘stereotypes’ as subcategories of ‘substance’. This involves minimal disturbance as it
requires the least adjustment to our previous thinking.