Interpreting Qualitative Data - Essay Example

? Interpreting Qualitative Data Interpreting Qualitative Data With growing application of qualitative research method, scholars and researchers have come forward to assess the method with its limitations and effectiveness. An argument comes in place for qualitative research that it is an approach, which is not specific or objective as like quantitative research, but it is an approach that requires profoundness and high contemplative thinking of the researcher (James, 2012). Based on the above background, this paper assesses the argument, “interpreting qualitative is a craft that needs practice; it is not just a technique to be mastered”. The paper will assess the process of qualitative data analysis involving the role of computer aided data analysis software, which is a development brought in qualitative research method (James, 2012). Geertz (1973) asserts that sound interpretation on any subject comes from individuals’ experiences on that subject. It is the individual personal experiences that matter in qualitative analysis and interpretation (as cited in James, 2012). The author argues that indulging in experience is relatively more important than abstract speculation (models or tools) in qualitative interpretation (Westbrook, 1994). According to James (2012), qualitative interpretation is about exploring people’s lives. This is what anthropologists do as they study people’s lives to bring certain significant findings. Geertz extends this view by describing qualitative interpretation as a method of knowing of what others’ have already known in any subject. This is what modern literature defines as secondary research, which is a significant part of qualitative interpretation (James, 2012). Schmid (1981) describes qualitative interpretation as an exploration process of empirical evidences (as cited in Krefting, 1991). The empirical evidences when explored mean the collection of the past data as projected by authors and researches in their previous studies. Furthermore, the author asserts that the researcher’s viewpoint is deliberately important in any qualitative interpretation. It is the critical viewpoint of the researcher that matters in qualitative reasoning and interpretation (Krefting, 1991). According to the literature of qualitative research, naturalistic inquiry is part of qualitative assessment (Erlandson, 1993). Naturalistic inquiry refers to the analysis of the behavior of individuals who are part of a particular study such as participants, observers or investigators (Flick, 2009). The behavioral analysis refers to the analysis of sociological, cultural, and environment factors, which have a direct influence on the behaviors of the people (Sutehall & Sque, 2010). The naturalistic inquiry demands from the researcher his or her imaginative thinking and for that reason no qualitative interpretation begins without the scientific imagination, as Geertz describe in his famous essay “Thick Description” (Geertz, 1973). Laura (1991) depicts that qualitative interpretation requires qualitative reasoning, which comes from the accumulated knowledge of the researcher (Krefting, 1991). Knowledge deliberately emanates logic and reasoning, which is an opening ground for solid interpretation. Kirk and Miller (1996) identified knowledge of life history, ethnography and demography as important for researchers (Krefting, 1991). The authors signify that by attaining knowledge of these areas, researchers are able to evolve with the process of interpretation, which demands compulsive thinking, and mind reasoning abilities (Sullivan, 2002). Moreover, the contemporary literature asserts that reflexivity is one dimension of qualitative interpretation (Trainor & Graue, 2013). It is the reflection of one’s own ideas on others’ thoughts that makes interpretation comprehensive and effective (Flick, 2009). Qualitative interpretation demands researcher’s involvement in the entire research procedure as it is the researcher himself who comes out as a primary instrument in qualitative research. Collection of the data, organization of the interviews, identification of the research sites and writing up of the conclusions all comes under the responsibility of one craftsman (the researcher) (Humphrey & Lee, 2007, p.390). For this reason it is said that the element of craft is precisely there in qualitative research, which involves experience, skill, knowledge and effort of the researcher to complete the task successfully (Sutehall & Sque, 2010). Quantitative data analysis is not as simple as the quantitative analysis as here something more is needed than just statistical tools or models. For qualitative understanding, the data has to be searched first, detailed, and then hypothesized to meet the objective of qualitative research, which demands transformation of the data from raw form to meaningful hypothesis. The element of subjectivity is there in this quantitative data analysis procedure, which can be resourceful from quantified models but cannot be completed until researcher’s subjective approach is there in it (Geertz, 1973). It has been noted that in the recent research practice, there is an immense involvement of computer-aided packages (Welsh, 2002). The reason for this is that such packages offer a great deal of organization of the data which is large in number and complex in the form to get manifested (Carcary, 2011). On just one push of a button, by such powerful computer aided tools, the complex data becomes organized and well managed. Moreover, such tools are effective enough to record, search or format data, which are operationally needed in any qualitative research. James (2012) claims that these computer-aided packages are good demonstrators of a large set of data but still are not good analyzers of complex social issues such as reciprocity in individuals’ relationships. Definitely, it is the human mind, the human knowledge and skill that can bring the apprehensive judgment or interpretation (Welsh, 2002). Carcary (2011) depicts that computer aided packages optimize the time of research by making data management procedures automated and highly efficient. Such packages are effective replacers of the manual procedures “the pen and paper work” which required a lot of time and effort to record and manage large data feeds. There is no doubt about it that such computer aid packages assist the entire research process, but not the interpretation process, which requires the human mind and intelligence to get accomplished (Carcary, 2011). Interpretation comes from experience and it is the individual’s experience that enables the process of qualitative interpretation. Geertz (1973) finds that imagination is relatively important for qualitative interpretation, relatively more important than tools, techniques or models. Tools assist in the organization of the research but they distinctively do not assist on the grounds of reasoning or interpretation. This is what most of the authors in qualitative research literature believe as they depict that computer aided packages cannot be replacers of human mind and intelligence which are the true source of interpretation and analysis. List of References Carcary, M., 2011. Evidence Analysis Using CAQDAS: Insights From a Qualitative Researcher. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(1), pp.10-24. Erlandson, D.A., 1993. Doing naturalistic inquiry: a guide to methods. London: Sage. Flick, U., 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Humphrey, C. & Lee, B., 2007. The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research: A Behind the Scenes View of Using Qualitative Research Methods. Elsevier. James, A., 2012. Seeking the analytic imagination: reflections on the process of interpreting qualitative data. Qualitative Research , pp.1-16. Krefting, L., 1991. Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness. The American Journal oj Occupational Therapy, 45(3), pp.214-22. Sullivan, G.B., 2002. Reflexivity and Subjectivity in Qualitative Research. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 27 November 2013]. Sutehall, T.L. & Sque, M., 2010. Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(4), pp.335-44. Trainor, A.A. & Graue, E., 2013. Qualitative Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. London: Routledge. Welsh, E., 2002. Dealing with Data: Using NVivo in the Qualitative Data Analysis Process. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2), pp.26-30. Westbrook, L., 1994. Qualitative Research Methods: A Review of Major Stages, Data Analysis Technique, and Quality Controls. Research Report. Universiry of Michigan. Read More