Qualitative_data_analysis

60 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
Although ‘coding’ has become an accepted term for categorizing data, it has
misleading connotations and is singularly inappropriate for qualitative analysis. In
common usage, ‘codes’ are legal statutes arranged to avoid inconsistency and
overlapping. They can also refer to symbols used for brevity (or secrecy) in place of
ordinary language. Both usages are relevant in the use of ‘coding’ as a term for
analysing data resulting from research where structured responses can be assigned
unambiguously to pre-defined categories. But neither usage is appropriate for
qualitative analysis, where much of the data is unstructured. In categorizing
unstructured data, inconsistencies and overlaps are unavoidable, since at least in the
initial stages of analysis, categories are inclusive rather than exclusive. As for the use
of codes (i.e. brief symbols) in place of categories, advances in computing
technology have rendered this procedure redundant; it is now possible (and in some
respects, desirable) to categorize data with terms whose meaning is immediately
intelligible. We may retain ‘coding’ as a term for replacing full category names by brief
symbols, but we should not confuse this with the analytic process of creating and
assigning the categories themselves.
The term ‘coding’ has a rather mechanical overtone quite at odds with the
conceptual tasks involved in categorizing data. This arises from the association of
coding with a consistent and complete set of rules governing the assignment of
codes to data, thereby eliminating error and of course allowing recovery of the
original data simply by reversing the process (i.e. decoding). Qualitative analysis, in
contrast, requires the analyst to create or adapt concepts relevant to the data rather
than to apply a set of pre-established rules. It is ironic that one of the foremost
exponents of a theoretical approach to qualitative analysis should also have
popularized the language of ‘coding’ as a way of describing this process (Strauss
1987; Strauss and Corbin 1990).
This may seem an unduly long digression, but it can be justified if it signals some
of the dangers which have been ascribed to the introduction of computers in
qualitative analysis. But before considering some of the potential drawbacks of the
computer, let us look at some of the ways in which it promises to transform the
analytic process.
The computer is a powerful tool for searching data. Even a simple wordprocessing
package will have facilities for finding all examples of a user-specified
‘keyword’ (or phrase). More sophisticated procedures will allow an analyst to search
for related forms or synonyms, and use wild card characters and exclusions. Even
using the simplest search procedure it is possible for an analyst to read through the
data in a variety of ways. One of my colleagues aptly describes this as taking different