Qualitative_data_analysis

CORROBORATING EVIDENCE 229
There is no reason to suppose that social researchers are somehow immune from
pressures such as these. Perhaps their careers are less illustrious and their prizes are
less tempting! On the other hand, perhaps their opportunities to fabricate or falsify
evidence are even greater. There are two main checks on the fabrication or
falsification of evidence. One is the normative assumptions and ethical code of the
research community. The other is the fear of being found out. While the former
may be as strong amongst social researchers as amongst any other research
community, the latter is undoubtedly weaker. To be ‘found out’ requires replication,
and in qualitative analysis this is notoriously difficult to achieve. Unlike the
physicists, who could try to replicate the research of colleagues claiming to have
produced cold nuclear fusion in a test tube (and show that the supposed scientific
breakthrough was a laboratory error) the results of most qualitative analysis mostly
have to be taken on trust. Replication is often not a practical proposition. Aside
from the pervasive preference amongst socials scientists for doing ‘original’ research
rather than replicating the work of others, replication of most qualitative studies
would require an impractical commitment of resources and effort.
The rare efforts that have been made to replicate earlier research are not exactly
encouraging. Bryman (1988:74–6) notes two cases in which the results of classic
anthropological studies (by Lewis and Mead) were later hotly contested upon
subsequent ‘replication’ by other researchers. These replications were themselves
controversial, since though they produced quite contradictory results, in practice
they could not replicate the original studies in terms of both time and place. Indeed,
in so far as qualitative studies aim to be sensitive to factors embedded in a specific
time and place, it is difficult to see how such replication could be achieved.
In place of ‘external’ replication by other research, then, the qualitative analyst
must perforce rely on ‘internal’ replication of his or her own research. By ‘internal’
replication I mean that colleagues can inspect the procedures through which
evidence has been produced—at least in principle—and check whether using similar
procedures they achieve similar results with the data. There may be no direct
parallel for the recent checks on whether proper procedures have been followed in
the production of criminal evidence (e.g. testing to see whether notes ostensibly
written during interviews have been added to afterwards). For one thing, qualitative
research is noted for its lack of established procedures and agreed canons governing
the conduct of enquiry. But the principle of ensuring that such procedures as are
followed can stand up to scrutiny can be applied. The computer makes this more
possible than previously, because it facilitates recording of successive stages in the
transformation of data and easy access to the data in its original form.
I noted earlier that the qualitative analyst may have to play all the roles in the
analytic drama. Ideally, internal replication involves making the research open to
outside scrutiny, Of course, other researchers may be too preoccupied with their