Qualitative_data_analysis

Figure 10.8 Comparing subcategories of ‘substance’
However, we cannot consider the question ‘where should this category go?’
without also considering the question ‘why should it go there?’. The conceptual
distinction we have drawn between stereotypes and differences may be clear enough,
but its analytic significance remains obscure. This may become clearer if we
recollect the other categories we previously included in our analysis of the substance
of humour—‘victims’ and ‘values’ (Figure 10.8).
With each of our previous categories we addressed some related questions whose
answers could make a significant contribution to our understanding of the
substance of the humour.
Victims Who are the victims of the humour?
Values What values are affirmed or subverted?
Stereotypes What stereotypes are invoked?
SPLITTING AND SPLICING 157
The question ‘What differences are referred to?’ hardly carries the same analytic
import. Unlike victims, values and stereotypes, in substantive terms these
characteristics are incidental rather than integral to the achievement of humorous
effects.
It may seem that we have gone up a blind alley. In any route through our analysis
there are likely to be several such cul-de-sacs. All may not be lost, however. Before we
despair of integrating the category ‘differences’ into our analysis, we should consider
whether the data it ‘contains’ relates to any other aspects of the analysis. There are at
least two possibilities worth exploring. One would be to consider whether the
differences we have noted may illuminate our questions about victims and values.
For example, is Woody Allen poking fun at various artistic or professional values
through his transposition of occupational characteristics? If we can answer questions
like this in the affirmative, then we may still be able to learn something about the
substance of his humour from our differentiation of occupational characteristics.