Qualitative_data_analysis

CORROBORATING EVIDENCE 237
possibility of error. Errors in analysis matter, even if their consequences may be less
dramatic than errors in the criminal justice.
How does the criminal justice process deal with the possibility of error? One way
is to ensure that where there is doubt, different interpretations of the data are
considered. Hence the role of the prosecution and the defence. A second is to
suspend judgement as long as possible, and at least until each of these
interpretations has been fully considered. A third way is to accept one interpretation
—‘guilty’—in preference to another—‘innocent’—only if it is beyond reasonable
doubt.
These are three related ways in which we can minimize the risk of error and
misinterpretation of the evidence. One is to entertain rival interpretations of the
data. Another is to suspend judgement as long as possible. A third is to refrain from
judging between rival interpretations until we can chose one ‘beyond reasonable
doubt’. And in line with the presumption of innocence in criminal justice, the test of
being ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ should be more stringent for those interpretations
with the most significant theoretical or practical consequences.
Entertaining different explanations is a way of keeping an open mind. As I said
earlier, an open mind is not an empty head. Some analysts recommend an approach
which seems to come dangerously close to fitting the latter description. It is
suggested that the best approach to evidence is to avoid developing ideas
‘prematurely’, until one is thoroughly familiar with all the evidence. This tabula rasa
approach is dangerous because it leaves the analyst prone to all manner of prejudices
and preconceptions, which are no less powerful for remaining subliminal. It is better
to make ideas and values explicit rather than leaving them implicit and pretending
that they are not there. The effort to devise alternative accounts is a more effective
safeguard against preconceptions than trying to maintain a conceptual vacuum,
which one’s prevailing prejudices may rapidly fill.
The tabula rasa approach reminds me of the story of a detective who was
following a suspect along a street at night, and the suspect dropped something in
the gutter at a dark point in the road. Finding this action suspicious and suspecting
that some vital evidence had been dispensed with, the detective decided to look for
it. However, it was too dark to see anything at that point, so he moved further down
the road to where there was a street-lamp, and looked for the evidence there! The
detective is like an analyst who insists on using preconceived ideas to analyse his
data. He will never find what he is looking for. It would be far better to get down
on his hands and knees and feel around in the dark. Indeed, it might even be better
to have no light at all, so that his eyes can adjust to the darkness, rather than be
blinded by an adjacent light which prevents him from developing a ‘night vision’.
In other words, if we rely on preconceived ideas, we may look for our evidence in
the wrong place. One can feel the force of this story, but before we decide to