Qualitative_data_analysis

250 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
pressures to produce ‘results’ which can be used without due qualification, heedless
of their tentative and contingent character. Like the phrase ‘data collection’, the term
‘findings’ is really grossly misleading, with its implication that we have only ‘found’
what was already in the data simply waiting to be discovered. If this was the case,
qualitative analysis would be as straightforward as collecting rubbish. And if we were
to adopt this approach, rubbish is all we might be able to produce! As I have
emphasized throughout this book, the results of our analysis are shaped by the
conceptual tools we create and adapt for use in examining the data. Our ‘facts’ are
produced through our conceptualizations. As Bohm (1983) has noted, the root of
the word ‘fact’ is ‘that which has been made’ as in manufacture—our ‘facts’
therefore depend on how our perceptions are shaped by our thinking. Even in
summarizing briefly the main points of our analysis, we should be wary of simply
reporting a series of conclusions as ‘facts’ and thereby investing our results with a
spurious value they do not merit.
As well as function, we need to consider the materials at our disposal. Most likely
these will be far in excess of the space we have available, even in a very full report of
our analysis. Sigmund Freud may have written twenty-four volumes, but most of us
have to be somewhat more modest in our ambitions, and confine ourselves to a
single—and reasonably slim—volume. The shorter the report, the more disciplined
we have to be in producing it. Basically, we have to be ruthless in retaining our
focus on the key elements in our story. This does not mean that all embellishments
and elaborations must be excised, for they may contribute significantly to our
portrayal of setting, character or plot. We have to strike a balance between depth
and detail on the one hand, and breadth on the other. Better to tell one story well,
than to attempt several tales, and end up telling them all badly. We not only have to
focus on the key elements in our story; we also have to ensure we have sufficient
space to do justice to our narration.
Research is essentially an exercise in selection. If we still harbour any lingering
illusions on this point, the discipline of producing an account of our analysis should
dispell them. Interesting themes, colourful incidents, and intriguing anecdotes may
have to be excised, simply because they are not sufficiently important and central to
merit inclusion in our account. It may be very difficult to contemplate leaving things
out. But as Patton (1980:429) notes, if we spare ourselves the agony of selection we
simply impose upon our audience the agony of having to plough through all the
things that were not omitted and should have been.
Perhaps the easiest way to facilitate this process of selection is to consider our
analysis as a tree-shaped diagram. The main thrust of the analysis forms the trunk of
the tree, with subsidiary themes forming the branches and the so on until we clothe
the tree with leaves which provide the necessary colour and detail. We can create
our tree graphically, but we can give substance to our representation by