Lyn wrote:
>Then interpretive coding -
<snip> Is there a use here for mechanical search? I'd say yes,
>so long as the researcher sees it as the _first step_ (emphasis added)
I think I know what Lyn means, and I've usefuly used the technique myself,
but it worries me. Using autocoding in this way encourages the researcher
to think in chunks of decontextualised text. I find it hard enough to
remember an interview as a whole as it is. But autocoding can be used to
get things going so that it reduces the need to read through interviews as
a whole. This makes it less likely that chunks will be seen in the context
of what was said in the page before or after, or at the beginning or
ending. It moves the focus away from the complexities and nuances of
intepretative process toward a more superficial analysis that takes for
granted an understanding of the general outline of people's stories etc.
This is doubly a problem if the analysis is done by someone who did not do
the interviews. As Birrell pointed out, autocoding works well to search for
specific phrases, and as Lyn rightly points out, autocoding is very useful
for fixed questions. However, it is no substitute for beginning the
analysis by reading the transcripts again and again when the analytic
approach is interpretative, and focused on meaning. But who has the time
to do that?
Ann made a related point in her response to John:
>one has a better sense of those broad segments when looking at the file as a
>whole - if there are not too many segments broken up by very detailed,
>intensive coding.
Doug.
Douglas Ezzy PhD
Sociology
University of Tasmania,
Hobart, 7001, Australia
Ph (613) 6226 2330
Fax (613) 6226 2279
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|