Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:18:00 EST
From:         Monika Ardelt <UMONIA@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Coding in qualitative analysis

Dear Markku,
   let me just add something to Michael Schratz information on
objective hermeneutics or, as it is called now (because of the
controversial word "objective"), structural hermeneutics.
I am planning to use the method for my Ph.D. research, so the
following is an excerpt from my thesis.

   Structural hermeneutics is a method that enables the researcher
to reconstruct the objective structure of a specific case after a
very detailed and extensive analysis of the data.
   The analysis of the data occurs in sequential order (in contrast
to procedures that first "cut the data into pieces" and then try to
subsumize these pieces under common categories).  In the case of a
qualitative interview, one takes the first statement of the respondent
and tries to imagine as many and as contrasting situations in which
this statement could have been made.  This means that one tries to tell
as many different "stories" about the statement as possible.  In order
to do this, one intuitively uses the common knowledge about the rules
and norms of society, i.e. only situations that would make sense are
taken into consideration.  The next step consists of finding the
common structural characteristics of these constructions.  Finally,
these structural characteristics are compared with the next statement
of the respondent and all constructions that do not fit are excluded.
The main goal of this exercise is not to come up with a multitude of
different explanations for a particular statement, but to _exclude_
as many alternative explanations as possible.
  The second statement of the respondent is analyzed in the same
way as the first statement, but now by taking into account the general
structural characteristics that already emerged from the first step.
Again, one will think of all possible situations in which this
statement _and_ the previous one could have been made.  The aim is to
discover the common structural characteristics of these constructions
and compare them with the third statement.  Constructions that do not
make sense are again rejected and the third statement is analyzed,
etc.
   The procedure leads to a systematic exclusion of meaningful
explanations and very soon to the appearance of a general structure of
the case under investigation.  The case specific structure emerges when
the same possibilities are systematically excluded repetitively.
   The formulation of a theory about the case specific structure occurs
by using solely the data of the case itself.  The only assumptions that
has to be made is that people are able to make choices, i.e., that they
are not completely determined in their behavior, and that they do not
act in a random fashion but in a meaningful way.  If one discovers the
choices that people do _not_ make, one can see the structure behind the
choices that they _do_ make.
   The goal of this analysis technique is to discover the latent
structures of meaning ("latente Sinnstrukturen") of a particular case.
The individual might not be aware of these latent structure him- or
herself, but they will nevertheless determine his or her behavior.
   One danger in applying this technique is that one might concentrate
too early on a specific hypothesis.  Therefore, it is recommended that
a group of people perform the analysis together.  The analysis is
completed if only one possible explanation for the next statement
makes sense, i.e., if only one general structure of the case remains.
The case can then be viewed as a special "token" or representative of
a general type, i.e., all cases with similar characteristics.

I hope this helps.

Monika Ardelt
Department of Sociology
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(umonia@unc.bitnet)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU