Qualitative_data_analysis

168 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
Suppose we want to characterize the hyperlink we have made between the
databits in Figure 11.6. What kind of link is this? The data offers us a clue, in the
use of the conjunction ‘because’ to connect the two parts of the statement. We
could regard this as an example of action and consequence, where the ‘action’ refers
to Vincent’s bridge-building activities and the consequence is Mrs Sol Schwimmer’s
suing him. Causal connections refer to events ‘out there’ in the real world of social
action. Here we have Vincent’s report on those events. Does this give us enough
information to justify characterizing this link as causal? We have to rely on
Vincent’s interpretation: he says Mrs Sol Schwimmer is suing because her bridge
doesn’t fit. He doesn’t offer any alternative explanations, for example that Mrs Sol
Schwimmer has litigious inclinations and sues every dentist she encounters—though
this may be so. On the other hand, we may consider that Vincent’s interpretation
has a plausible ring, for we can recognize it as conforming to an established pattern,
where the action (malpractice) has this result (litigation) as a possible (and perhaps
even probable) consequence.
Attributing a link between databits is like assigning a category to a bit of data: it
is a matter of judgement. We ‘observe’ links within the data; but we will not find
them unless we look for them, and we have to be wary of finding what we are
looking for, regardless of the data. Even though Vincent claims a causal connection
between the two, we have to assess the plausibility of his claim, and weigh the
evidence in its support, before we can characterize this link as a causal one with any
confidence. Where there is no certainty, there is a risk of error. Here we must
balance the error of failing to characterize this as a causal link (if it is one) against
the error of so characterizing it (if it is not).
The closer we stay to the data, the less prone we become to error. Suppose we
characterize this link as explanatory rather than causal. We can take Vincent’s
explanation at face value, without worrying unduly whether the causal assumptions
he makes (or implies) in his explanation are in fact true. Whatever actually
prompted Mrs Sol Schwimmer to sue, we can be reasonably confident that this is
Vincent’s explanation of it. Of course, we cannot be sure that it is his only
explanation. There may be other factors Vincent .simply hasn’t bothered to
mention. Perhaps they are recorded in other letters which we have not discovered.
Nor can we be absolutely certain that Vincent isn’t lying to his brother, and
inventing some plausible reason why Mrs Sol Schwimmer is suing him, in order to
disguise the real one. Or it may be that Vincent is sincere, but deceiving himself.
Staying close to the data may reduce the possibility of error, but it does not
eliminate it altogether.
In this instance, let us opt to characterize this link as explanatory rather than
causal (Figure 11.7). We lack corroborative evidence for the events Vincent describes,
and this should encourage a certain caution in the inferences we make. In any case,