RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

INTERPRETATION IN QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS: MULTILAYERED TEXTS 495
Strauss and Corbin (1994: 253–6) suggest
several criteria for evaluating the theory:
How adequately and powerfully the theory
accounts for the main concerns of the data.
The relevance and utility of the theory for the
participants should be considered.
The closeness of the fit of the theory to the
data and phenomenon being studied, and under
what conditions the theory holds true, should
be examined.
What is the fit of the axial coding to the
categories and codes
Is the theory able to embrace negative and
discrepant cases
What is the fit of the theory to literature
How was the original sample selected On what
basis
What major categories emerged
What were some of the events, incidents,
actions and so on (as indicators) that pointed
to some of the major categories
On the basis of what categories did theoretical
sampling proceed Was it representative of the
categories
What were some of the hypotheses pertaining
to conceptual relations (that is, among
categories), and on what ground were they
formulated and tested
Were there instances when hypotheses did not
hold up against what was actually seen How
were these discrepancies accounted for How
did they affect the hypotheses
How and why was the core category selected
(sudden, gradual, difficult, easy) On what
grounds
Were concepts generated and systematically
related
Were there many conceptual linkages, and
were the categories well developed
Was much variation built into the theory
Were the broader conditions built into its
explanation
Were change or movement taken into account
in the development of the theory
The essence of this approach, that theory emerges
from and is grounded in data, is not without
its critics. For example, Silverman (1993: 47)
suggests that it fails to acknowledge the implicit
theories that guide research in its early stages
(i.e. data are not theory neutral but theory
saturated) and that it might be strong on providing
categorizations without necessarily explanatory
potential. These are caveats that should feed
into the process of reflexivity in qualitative
research.
Interpretation in qualitative data
analysis: multilayered texts
Words carry many meanings; they are nuanced
and highly context-sensitive. In qualitative data
analysis it is often the case that interpretation and
analysis are fused and, indeed, concurrent. It is
naïve to suppose that the qualitative data analyst
can separate analysis from interpretation, because
words themselves are interpretations and are to be
interpreted. Further, texts themselves carry many
levels of meaning, and the qualitative researcher
has to strive to catch these different levels or layers.
The issues of projection and counter-transference
are important: the researcher’s analysis may say
as much about the researcher as about the
text being analysed, both in the selection of
the levels of analysis and the imputation of
intention and function of discourses in the
text. The following example may expose the
issues here (Cummings 1985). It is a transcript
of a short conversation in an infant classroom
which contains the potential for several levels of
analysis.
Aworkedexample:discussioninaninfant
classroom
This is a class of 27 5–6-year-old children, with
the children seated on a carpet and the teacher
seated on a chair. A new set of class books has
arrived for the children’s free use. After a few days
the teacher feels that the class and the teacher
should look at them together.
Chapter 23