Mason 2002: Critical Reflection

"The key question for this chapter and is, how to construct and present a convincing explanation or argument on the basis of qualitative data" (Mason, 2002). It is this notion that takes me to this critical reflection of Mason 2002. The chapter begins by advising that sorting data and constructing explanations should be strategic and consistent. There are three key elements to organising qualitative data, cross-sectional; categorical indexing; non- cross-sectional data organisation. Mason states that before one can decide which approach they should be using, one needs to recognise the data first. 

Recognising data

Having transcribed all interviews, focus groups and observations, I now have a series of ideas. These ideas need to be transcribed and also 'put into boxes', clearly labelled so that the data is easily accessible. When It comes to reading the data, Mason gives me two key questions. What counts as data or evidence in relation to my research? How do I wish to read my data? Mason states that it is vital to revisit these questions which I asked myself many times. The data is then put into three categories. Literal reading, where I look at the literal form of the interview, concentrating on the words and language used, and the structure of the dialogue in its literal content. The second is interpretive and reflexive reading, this is the consideration of the interpretive reading of the data, it concentrates on my interpretation of what is being said or the interpretation of the social phenomena. A reflexive reading makes me part of the data. 

Cross-sectional and Categorical Indexing

"Cross-sectional indexing of data involves devising a consistent system for indexing the whole of the data sets accordingly to effect of common principles and measures" (Mason, 2002)" Often called categorising or coding, the data is put into systematic categories with headings or subheadings that give a descriptive sense of what each section of text is about. I feel that I like this method and in my write-up will make for a clear and concise analysis. However Mason warns there are limitations to indexing in this way. This signposting could make the data general, but also if the data is not so uniform, such as a semi-structured conversation, it could not work well in representing what was said. This method is best for text based data. However, it is good regaining a systematic overview of the data, to gain a clear idea of the scope. 

Categorical Indexing

Categorical indexing is about taking a slice of the data from a collection of sections from the whole data collected. Here the researcher needs to ensure they are familiar as possible with the data, by knowing the data well the research can then make decisions on the indexing and categories that they will live in.

Non-crosssectional

Non-crosssectional or contextual data organisation involves sorting your data in methods which does not necessarily use the same lens. You can consider the life stories of the participants or the dynamics of the settings. 

I Feel that a contextual approach to my data analysis will be ideal as Mason recommended it as a way to, "understand intricately parts of my data-set, social processes, complex narratives or practices" (Mason, 2002). Without claiming to be a professional researcher, this approach give me a sense of room to allow my data to do the talking and gives me the tool to know something within my practice, I'm still yet to learn. 

To conclude Mason suggests that these methods are not constitute to the whole act of data analysis in themselves, in effect all these methods do is to help organise and get a 'handle on the data', the remainder of your analytical effort will go into constructing explanations and arguments" (Mason, 2002). I now take these ideas forward with me to analyse my data and present them to the rest of the world, in a clear and concise display. 

Making Convincing Arguments

Mason sees qualitative researchers as being in the business of producing social explanations or addressing intellectual puzzles. She explains it is like arguing interpretively on narratively, by making an argument because you show that the interpretation and the meaning is reasonable. "Interpretations of meanings, experiences, accounts, actions and events can be developed into explanations and understanding... Theory comes first, and your analytical task will be to measure or match up your data against these theories" (Mason, 2002). Mason then suggests it useful to concentrate the researchers efforts on thinking about the data in a theoretical and conceptual inspired way, thinking about theory within the data. Here I find an importance for the theory within my literature reviews and the rationale behind finding ideas, that critically measure to what I will discover about my professional practice.

References

Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative Researchring; Part III: Analysing Qualitative Data. Sage Publications, London.