6.8.1 Qualitative analysis: holistic and inductive
Researchers analysing qualitative research information strive to understand a phenomenon as a whole. According to Patton (2002), this holistic approach assumes that the whole is understood as a complex system that is greater than the sum of its parts. At the time of research information collection, each case under study, though treated as a unique entity with its own particular meaning and its own constellation of relationships emerging from and related to the context within which it occurs, is also thought of as a window into the whole (Patton, 2002).
Qualitative inquiry is particularly oriented towards exploration, discovery and inductive logic. Inductive analysis begins with specific observations and builds towards general patterns. Inductive analysis contrasts with the hypothetical-deductive approach of experimental designs that requires the specification of main variables and the statement of specific research hypotheses before data collection begins (Patton, 2002). A specification of research hypotheses based on an explicit
theoretical framework means that general constructs provide the framework for understanding specific observations or cases. The investigator must then decide in advance what variables are important and what relationships among those variables can be expected. The strategy of inductive designs is to allow the important analysis dimensions to emerge from patterns found in the cases under study, without presupposing in advance what the important dimensions will be. The qualitative analyst seeks to understand the multiple interrelationships among dimensions that emerge from the research information, without making prior assumptions or specifying hypotheses about the linear or correlative relationships among narrowly defined, operationalised variables.
6.8.2 Phenomenological analysis
Phenomenological analysis seeks “to grasp and elucidate the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived experience of a phenomenon for a person or group of people” (Patton, 2002, p.482).
According to Patton (2002), the first step in phenomenological analysis is called epoche. Epoche is a Greek word meaning “to refrain from judgement, to abstain from or stay away from the everyday, ordinary way of perceiving things” (Moustakas, 1994, p.33). In taking on the perspective of epoche, “the researcher looks inside to become aware of personal bias, to eliminate personal involvement with the subject material, that is, eliminate, or at least gain clarity about, preconceptions” (Patton, 2002, p.485). Epoche helps enable the researcher to investigate the phenomenon from a fresh and open viewpoint, without prejudgement or imposing meaning too soon. This suspension of judgement is critical in phenomenological investigation and requires the setting aside of the researcher’s personal viewpoint in order to see the experience for itself.
Following epoche, the second step is phenomenological reduction. In this analytical process, the researcher “brackets out” the world and presuppositions to identify the research information in pure form, uncontaminated by extraneous intrusions (Patton, 2002, p.485).
Bracketing is Husserl’s term. In bracketing, the researcher holds the phenomenon up for serious inspection. It is taken out of the world where it occurs and it is taken apart and dissected. The phenomenon’s elements and essential structures are uncovered, defined, and analyzed (Denzin, 1989). It is treated as a text or document; that is, as an instance of the phenomenon that is being studied. It is not interpreted in terms of the standard meanings given to it by the existing literature. Those preconceptions,
which were isolated in the deconstruction phase, are suspended and put aside during bracketing. In bracketing, the subject matter is confronted, as much as possible, on its own terms.
In this study the research information was “taken apart and dissected” according to the method laid out by Kruger (1979).
6.8.3 Research information Analysis: Kruger’s method
As Patton (2002) states, finding a way to creatively synthesize and present findings is one of the challenges of qualitative analysis. When there are several cases to be compared, an inductive approach begins by constructing individual cases, without pigeon holing or categorizing those cases. That is, the first task is to do a careful job independently writing up the separate cases. Once that is done, cross-case analysis can begin in search of patterns and themes that cut across individual experiences.
The initial focus is on full understanding of individual cases before those unique cases are combined or aggregated thematically.
In line with this inductive methodology, Kruger (1979) identifies six sub-phases to explicate the gathered research information. These sub-phases are not seen as operating independently and may overlap with each other. The sub-phases are as follows:
6.8.3.1 An intuitive holistic grasp of the research information
In her initial reading of the protocols, the researcher should bracket her own preconceptions and judgement and, to the extent that she is able to do so, she remains faithful to the research information. After achieving a holistic sense of the research information, the protocols are read again – repeatedly if necessary – so as to assist the researcher in retaining a sense of the wholeness of the research information, despite its dissection in the subsequent phases.
6.8.3.2 Spontaneous emergence of Natural Meaning Units (NMUs)
The task of this phase is to articulate the central themes of each protocol. In this phase the research information is broken down into naturally occurring units – each conveying a particular meaning – which emerge spontaneously from the research information.
This unit, termed a Natural Meaning Unit (NMU) may be defined as a statement made by the subject, which is self-definable and self-delimiting in the expression of a single, recognized aspect of the subject’s experience.
The intention conveyed by each NMU is then expressed in a reduced form as concisely and accurately as possible. Wherever possible, the subject’s own terminology and phraseology should be adhered to. However, the researcher may articulate the central themes (reductions of the NMUs) in words other than those used by the subjects so as to clearly express the intended meaning.
6.8.3.3 Constituent profile description
Having listed all the reductions of the NMUs, the researcher then eliminates those units which are repeated or which convey an identical intention of meaning, as well as irrelevant units that are not concerned with the experience being investigated. The remaining statements are considered tentatively to be non-repetitive and relevant descriptive statements concerning the experience, and are termed the First Order Profile. This First Order Profile is then converted to a Constituent Profile Description, in brief, a condensed summary of the original research information containing the essence of what the participant expressed. (See Appendix D to R for the constituent profiles of the respondents).
6.8.3.4 Second order profile
The second order profile results from a repeat of phases one through to three, but performed on the Constituent Profile Description. The elements emerging from this procedure are listed and numbered. This final elimination procedure performed on the Constituent Profile description aims at removing any redundant constituents and, as stated, is termed the Second Order Profile.
The four phases outlined above were repeated for all respondents.
6.8.3.5 Hierarchical Categorization
Having repeated the above four phases for all respondents, the researcher gathers those descriptive statements with similar, though not identical, meanings into clusters termed categories. Any given category may contain elements from only one subject or from possibly all the subjects. These categories, or key themes, are then arranged in a hierarchical fashion to facilitate the next phase.
6.8.3.6 Extended description
Taking the first few clusters of categories, the researcher writes an extended description of what these categories tell her about the overall question being investigated. She then adds to this description the next category in the hierarchy and so either extends or modifies it in light of the new information in the additional category.
This procedure is repeated until further addition of categories is rendered superfluous since the essence of the research information is already contained in the extended description.
Following this, the researcher systematically and carefully checks the remaining categories, ensuring that they are compatible with the extended description. Those thematic elements (contained in the categories) that are not compatible are described and, where possible, the researcher shows that these elements are only apparently incompatible.
The extended description presents as condensed an understanding as possible of the essential or invariant meanings of the phenomenon. This final description of the phenomenon, now divorced from the individual experience, illuminates the commonalities of human experience.