20.02.2013 Views

Qualitative_data_analysis

Qualitative_data_analysis

Qualitative_data_analysis

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 15.3 Tree diagrams representing different analytic emphases<br />

PRODUCING AN ACCOUNT 251<br />

summarizing the main and subsidiary themes of our <strong>analysis</strong> in writing, until we<br />

have reached a sufficient level of detail to allow decisions to be made about the<br />

direction and emphasis we want to develop.<br />

Once again our design must take account of the materials to hand. Take our<br />

<strong>analysis</strong> of style and substance in Woody Allen’s humour. We could construct<br />

several different trees, depending on the way our <strong>analysis</strong> has unfolded and the<br />

varying emphasis we may have placed on different themes. Suppose in our <strong>analysis</strong><br />

we found the distinction between style and substance was of comparatively minor<br />

importance; this could be represented by our first tree in Figure 15.3. If our <strong>analysis</strong><br />

divided sharply and evenly between these two aspects, this could be represented by<br />

the second tree. In contrast, our third tree represents an emphasis on one aspect and<br />

a relatively minor role for the other.<br />

By outlining the shape of our <strong>analysis</strong> in this way, we can see at a glance the tradeoff<br />

involved in including or excluding different aspects of the <strong>analysis</strong>. We would<br />

place far more emphasis on the style-substance distinction in the second case than in<br />

the first. We might even dispense with the distinction altogether in the third case,<br />

and concentrate our attention on issues of style which occupy the bulk of our<br />

<strong>analysis</strong>. But before taking any drastic steps, we may want to elaborate on our<br />

diagram by drawing in subsidiary aspects of the <strong>analysis</strong>.<br />

Suppose the third tree comes closest to representing the shape our <strong>analysis</strong> has<br />

actually taken. Again the way our tree develops will reflect the varying emphases in<br />

the way our thinking may have developed. In Figure 15.4 we can contrast the first<br />

tree, where the main subsidiary branch is relatively undeveloped, with the second<br />

tree, where despite being less significant it still bears a considerable weight. We may<br />

be more inclined to prune the ‘style’ branch in the first instance than in the second.<br />

We can develop these tree diagrams to whatever level of detail is required to<br />

summarize the main strands of our <strong>analysis</strong>. We can also focus on particular<br />

branches and review the concepts and relationships stemming from them in much<br />

the same way.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!