Categorisation in qualitative research
Generally, a field of three approaches can result from this qualitative data analysis procedure.
The first is a
‘journalistic’ approach that is characterised by minimal researcher intervention
and the lowest level of patterning, abstraction and interpretation. The participants in the study
are allowed to speak for themselves as much as possible. The second is the ‘interpretive
descriptive’ approach where the researcher makes some effort at identification of patterns,
establishing interrelationships and general interpretation of patterns and interrelationships.
The third is the
‘grounded theory’ or ‘grounded hypothesis’ approach, which embodies the
highest level of abstraction and interpretation, where building a theory is the primary aim.
ANALYSING CASE STUDY DATA
In analysing case study data, two methods are most fruitful: patterns matching and time
series
analysis, as listed in Figure 6.1 here.
Figure 6.1: Analysing case study data
83
Regardless of whether the systematic method is patterns matching or time-series analysis,
the closer the ‘fit’ between the expected and the observed information, the more one can
accept that the contextual analysis is yielding helpful outcomes. Disparities between the
hypothesis and the empirical data can lead to an amendment of the hypothesis, and after
that a perfect correlation can be ascertained. Whenever required, this procedure can be
repeated and the hypothesis refined after some time because of expanding alterations and
corrections that emanate the procedure. In this way, the
researcher can consistently
reappraise the hypothesis to check whether it is helpful for translating ‘this present reality’
context of the study.
Dostları ilə paylaş: