Analysing the Interview

It is about what is defensible and justifiable.  Analysis in a way is not really analysis, it is about based on the data you have, what is the most defensible argument and position you can take.  An issue I thought about in this class was do patterns emerge from the interviews or do we assign a pattern to the data?  In a way, you see what you want to see or are trained to see.  I think that all research is subjective as it always involves some kind of judgement call.  Researchers try to be objective but they are only human, they are not machines.  Just because it is a number people think that it is objective, but the question is how did you get that number.  What choices did you make, why did they select a particular survey instrument over another, this is subjective.  It is about what fits, can you defend your argument with your evidence and your theory. 

Qualitative research is a very iterative, cyclical, at times, repetitive process.  The process of fitting your data with your theory involves a judgement, a skill, and it is very much an art not a skill.  I have noticed that Kerry speaks with metaphors when explaining key concepts.  For example, in terms of analysing the data, the picture on the jigsaw puzzle is like the theory, if the pieces (your data) fit your theory, it works, otherwise you have the wrong theory. 

During interviews it is very important to hear the full story of an interviewee because the moral (meaning) of the story comes at the end.  However, we also need to create a story from what we see.  You can think about this in terms of an argument in a paper.  When someone tells a story they are taking you through a journey and presenting an argument or their point of view, the ending of the story is like the conclusion of a paper.  In the story, the moral is related to all the things a person said.  In a paper, the conclusion is related to their overall argument in the paper. 

A good theory should explain and not just describe.  For example, when collecting interview data you see certain themes emerging, such as organizations working together, alliances falling apart, MCS working in some cases and not in other cases, how the rules of the game are created and changed.  ANT provides the reasons, explanations for why these observations take place.  In terms of structure and power, ANT deals with these issues but in its own way.  They are there, they exist, but ANT explains them in a different way, they use a different language.  It is like a different way of seeing things, a different mindset.  The issue is how can you convince others to see the way that you see. 

So it's like your data are observations of what is happening in the world, and the theory is a possible explanation for why things are happening.  The feature that makes qualitative research interesting is that a particular event can happen, but different people with different theories can have different explanations for why something happened.  This shows the diversity of qualitative research and the way that even with the same data, two researchers may come up with different conclusions and theories about what is happening. 

In relation to reflexivity, there are two issues.  First, your own biases that you need to deal with.  Second, there are the biases of the interviewee, you need to understand the way they think.  The interviewee could have a particular bias, and the interviewer could have different biases, and the interpretation of what really happenedmay not be what really happened. 

In terms of analysing your data, Kerry mentioned an interesting point that was about not ignoring your data.  You don't want to only selectively use the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else.  You need to decide how to address this other data.  It may mean that your theory is inadequate and by changing the theory you can use all of your data.  Or the data may be telling you that there is something more to the issue that you have overlooked.  Whenever you interpret your data, you need to consider your context.  If it's one thing that I have learnt when dealing with humans is that you can't apply some set criteria or assumptions to everyone just because they have some particular attributes. 

In order to be reflexive in a sense you you need to accept the fact that you don't know.  If you think you know, but you don't, there is a problem because you come up with the wrong conclusions.