GASTO TOTAL EN SALUD, 2012
2.4 Análisis PEST
Reflecting interpretation looks at documentary meaning. It serves to reconstruct the attitudinal framework, which homologously reveals itself again and again in the process and structure of a debate on all kinds of subjects. While formulating interpretation still pays attention to what is being said, reflecting interpretation focuses on how the group deals with a topic or a problem. Based on the ‘modus operandi’ it is then possible to access the conjunctive realm of experience, that is to say the collectively shared horizon of experience. Special attention is given to sections, “which are particularly interactive or metaphorically dense, the so-called focussing metaphors.”99 In research practice this
is done in a number of different ways, by means of which reciprocally limiting horizons (positive and negative opposite horizons), and potential for enactment are uncovered. “The researcher thus asks the text the following questions: ‘What is his objective? What is he averting/distancing himself from? Where does he see possibilities or obstacles for implementation?”100 The analysis of how the discussion is organised is another impor-
tant process. The various stages of the discourse provide the sequential component parts for this analysis, which “breaks the formal structure of the discourse down into rela- tionships between different attitudinal contents.”101 This then allows one to distinguish
between different modes of discourse organisation – including (parallel, antithetic and univocal) and excluding (oppositional and divergent).102 An in-depth sequence analysis
of the discussion is another procedure that reconstructs both the type of text and the stage of the discourse. It analyses how members of the group interact with each other.
99 Bohnsack 92014, 138. [italicised as in the original]
100 Przyborski/Wohlrab-Sahr 42014, 296.
101 Przyborski/Wohlrab-Sahr 42014, 298.
The following questions can be helpful when conducting a sequence analysis: “What are the distinctions found during step one and which horizon was outlined to ensure that the next step could react and continue appropriately?”103 To make it possible to
reconstruct shared attitudinal patterns, three different stages of discourse are needed (proposition, elaboration, conclusion). When an attitude or part of an attitudeis first proposed, it gets introduced into the discourse in the form of a topic. These propositions occur when a new topic is introduced into the discussion. The attitude introduced in the proposition unfolds during the elaboration. This can happen in a number of ways, e. g. by putting forward an argument or giving an example. Only once an attitude introduced into the discourse reaches its conclusion and a topic comes to an end, can a commonly shared attitude be confirmed, as long as it is also held by the other group members and not only by the person who introduced it to the discourse in a proposition.104Alongside
these three fundamental stages of discourse the documentary method also uses a wide range of terminology to analyse various stages of the discussion. It is therefore possi- ble to distinguish between validations, ratification, antitheses, oppositions, divergences, transpositions,as well as interim conclusions and concluding propositions.105A situation
where no shared attitudinal framework can be identified during the analysis of the stages of discourse, because participants are talking past each other, even if they e. g. address the topic, is called an incongruence of the frame.
Comparability of cases is intrinsic to the documentary method. The research process must include intra and cross case comparisons within the context of reflecting interpre- tation as early as possible, because when “the interpreter’s horizons of comparison are empirically well-founded, they are inter-subjectively comprehensible and verifiable.”106
The validity of reconstruction increases, the more the horizons of comparison are rooted in the empirical material and not in the researcher’s thought experiments. Intra and cross case comparison also serves to detect homologous meaning structures, which occur again and again, even in thematically diverse and unrelated sections. “The most important point of reference for analysis presentation” during reflecting interpretation is nonetheless “the uniqueness or wholeness of the case.”107 This point of reference only
gets left behind at the point of type creation.
103 Przyborski/Wohlrab-Sahr 42014, 296.
104 For various types of (ritual) conclusions cf. Przyborski 2004, 74–76. 105 Cf. Przyborski 2004, 61–76.
106 Bohnsack 92014, 139. [italicised as in the original]
Examples for reflecting interpretation108
Excerpt (108–143) from a section of the group discussion with the SCC/ORG (108–247) 108–113 Initiation of the topic by means of a description (108–110) and a question by
Y2 (110–112); a ratification by Vf (114); a follow-up question by Y2 (115)
After a conversation sparked by the question designed to ‘break the ice’ Y2 introduces the topic of the discussion. For her it is time to start the discussion (“Now”, 108). She specifies the new subject by giving it a number (“second”, 108). She initially introduces the new topic with a “question” (108) followed by a “request” (109). In doing so she shows herself to be the leader of the discussion. As she describes the research project she mentions “the situation RE finds itself in” (109–110) and thus reveals one of several focal points of this piece of work (“fundamental”, 109). The topic is roughly sketched out and given a physical location as she mentions “the city of Vienna” (110). Once she finishes her description she follows it with a narrative question. It enquires about a memorable situation that stayed with the group related to religion “in this school” (111). By asking this question Y2 substantiates the description of the research project. By using the demonstrative pronoun she focuses in on this particular school (“in this school” 111) and enquires about a situation where religion has become “an issue in this school” (111). As a second step she asks another question. By using the conjunctive “or” (111) she links her questions and therefore offers two narrative questions. After a silence of three seconds and a throat clearing sound “Hm” (114) by Vf, Y2 adds a follow-up question. The interviewer responds to this with another prod and rolls the subject out again. She poses the fundamental question if religion features in this school at all (115) and thus elicits responses.
116 Proposition by Um
Um responds to the interviewer’s question with his colloquial introjection “Well” (116)
and introduces a proposition. He gives an example from the past (“when there were”, 116), the “abuse cases” (116) (“when” 116 must be understood in the temporal sense). 117–126 Joint elaborations in the descriptive modality by Qm, Rf, Um, Vf and Zf
Um’s proposition is collaboratively elaborated on in the group. Om substantiates Um’s
statement by describing cases of abuse as ‘an issue’ in school. This gets repeated by Rf, and thus receives validation. At the same time Um feels his statement was understood and validates the substantiation (“Yes, yes”, 120). Rf starts by delineating the topic in a negative way (“Yes, […] but not”, 121) and continues with an explanation (“well”, 121), but does not continue. It is obvious that group members immediately understand each other as they do not have to explain themselves to each other. Vf expands on Rf’s
108 This example refers to section of the group discussion with the SCC/ORG (108–247) and comprises lines 108–143. For reasons of presentation the reflexive interpretation of this sec- tion is not reproduced in full. This example serves to illustrate how this study was conducted.
exploration. Her mode of elaboration is also distancing (“It wasn’t” 122). At the same time Qm and Zf validate these statements and distance themselves from their shared negative opposite horizon, the abuse cases. Rfonceagain distances herself from the abuse cases and mentions the phenomenon of “We” (125) for the first time. This phe- nomenon underlines a clear opposition between the shared “We” (125) – there is no more detailed definition at this stage, but due to the intra case comparative analysis it can be assumed she means the school – and the abuse cases, which are summed up as “that” (125). This opposition expresses a clear dissociation of the “We” (125) from the abuse cases. Qm validates this dissociation and makes it even stronger, by pointing out that there is no connection at all (“whatsoever”, 126). This dissociation finds further expression whenQm’s asks other participants in the group to suggest other topics. With this request the group does not address the negative counter horizon any further. The dissociation from the abuse cases is brought to a head precisely because it does not get addressed any further.
The negative counter horizon is already clearly discernableduring this short excerpt, as a problem area is being addressed. The group distances itself from this problem area, by emphasising the fact that there are no connections between the abuse cases and this school. The dissociation from this problem area reaches the point where it no longer gets addressed and the group moves on to a different subject.
127–136 Joint elaborations in the descriptive mode by Vf (127, 130–132) and Qm (133) with an interjected validation by Sf, an enquiry by Rf (129) and a ratification by Rf, Vf and Sf (134–136)
Vf pays no attention to religion, but believes that it does not cause a stir in any way. Her
statement emphasises this in two ways (“never” and “nothing at all” 127). Sf immedi- ately validates this. In response to Vf’s statement Rf makes a closed either-or enquiry.
She does, however, not put the second half of it into words (“or” 129). As a second attempt to substantiate her statement Vfstarts with a negative and reaches clarification. This clarification is again phrased in the negative. She clearly indicates more than once (“really”, 130; “not at all” 132 are used to strengthen and emphasise the statement) that religion is not an important subject for discussion in this school. She explicitly refers to this particular school (“here in this school”, 131). For her, religion is not a central topic in school, as “religion gets talked about” (131) neither very often, nor in a particularly intense way. At the end of her statement she further strengthens it, by using the mode of negation once again (“not at all” 132). Qm’s pursuing elaboration also shows that religion is not a topic that gets much attention. He emphasises that religion does not get addressed in any particular way. He too uses negative wordings (“neither […] nor”, 133). Religion is not the subject of combative debate, it does not polarise people. At the same time religion’s polarising and trouble-making potential is acknowledged (“it’s neither a positive nor a negative issue”, 133). This potential does, however, not come to bear in this school. His statement is ratified by three group members.
137–143 Joint elaborations in the mode of an argument by Qm (137, 139, 142–143) and by Vf (141)
Qm names the, in his view, good work RE teachers do as the reason why religion is
not a polarising issue. Religion gets thus connected to the work of RE teachers. He reflects positively on the work they do and calls it “challenging” (139). He reasons that RE teachers must be doing good work as in this school their subject runs in parallel to ethics education. With this statement he makes a connection to ethics education, which he believes to be one of the causal links to the good work done by RE teachers (“I think, probably also”, 137–139). Vfcontributes to Qm’s argument by pointing out that pupils can choose between ethics education and RE; a point Qm also picks up on. Qm also offers a delimitation (“but” 142) and adds the fact that pupils can choose to his earlier statement (cf. 133). Even though ethics education is offered in this schools, and pupils are able to choose which subject they attend, religion is not a confrontational subject (“there is nothing for and nothing against.” 142–143). Religion’s potential for creating conflict is expressed once again.