FUNDAMENTOS DE EPISTEMOLOGÍA GENERAL PARA LA PRUEBA DE LOS HECHOS

As mentioned in the beginning of this section, the qualitative phase of this current research is designed to fill the knowledge gap in the quantitative data analysis and provide further evidence of the validation of the clustering solution. To fulfil the two above-mentioned research purposes, thematic analysis has been chosen as the primary analytical technique. According to Braun and Clarke, thematic analysis is ‘a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data’ (2006: 6). Guest et

142

al. (2012) also tend to incorporate thematic analysis based on its practicality. For them, the thematic approach is ‘a rigorous, yet inductive, set of procedures designed to identify and examine themes from textual data in a way that is transparent and credible’

(2012: 20). Two main reasons contribute to this methodological selection. First, the research aims and the methodological arrangement (using the mixed-research method and the method of recruiting survey participants) of this current research determine that the analytical method in the qualitative phase should employ an inductive approach (data-driven method) rather than a theoretical or a deductive one (the analysis is oriented by the pre-existing theoretical framework or the researcher’s analytic a l preconceptions). The reason is that, similar to the rationality of choosing cluster analysis as the primary technique in the quantitative phase, maintaining independence from the existing theoretical framework in socio-cultural studies is also vital for understanding the visitors at the qualitative stage. An exploratory and theoretica lly value-free approach provides a solution to avoid the biases caused by pre-labelling the value of the cultural genres and pre-determining the social meaning of the detected patterns of cultural consumption (if applicable). In this way, the researcher can focus on the influences of Chinese historical, cultural and social contexts on the visitors ’ cultural consumption and how these contribute to the understanding of the cultura l divisions that are identified in the quantitative phase. Thus, the theoretical nature of thematic analysis as an inductive approach determines its high degree of appropriateness for this current research.

Additionally, thematic analysis shares many methodological advantages with a range of essential qualitative analytical methods while enabling the researchers to avoid issues caused by theoretical and epistemological constraints (e.g., Boyatzis 1998; Braun and

143

Clarke 2006; Guest et al. 2012; Sparkes and Smith 2013). For instance, both thematic analysis and grounded theory aim to develop knowledge. However, thematic analysis is different from grounded theory in two important respects: unlike grounded theory analysis, the flexibility of thematic analysis enables its users to avoid making an

‘implicit’ theoretical commitment (Braun and Clarke 2006: 85) and being restricted by a set of rigorous data collection and analysis procedures (e.g. theoretical sampling, open coding and axial coding). To be more specific, the grounded theory method is designed to construct a theory based on a systematic, inductive and comparative approach.

Aiming to develop a theory by exhausting the explanatory possibilities of their empirical data, the researchers need to start analysing the data at a very early stage of their sampling procedure (e.g., theoretical sampling). At the end of the data analysis, a novel theory is expected to be developed, through which the theoretical categories emerging from the data set can be explained. In contrast to grounded theory, thematic analysis summarises the data into themes, based on the similarities and the differe nces across the data set, and then seeks to interpret it in a ‘deep, freewheeling, aesthetically’

pleasing way (Sparkes and Smith 2013: 123). Regarding the supplementary characteristic of the qualitative phase of this current research and the limited data collection period (three months), it might be argued that thematic analysis should be deemed as a more suitable, practical and efficient analytical method for this situatio n.

Indeed, the reason is that the primary task of the qualitative phase in this current research was to provide a broader and deeper understanding of the empirical findings of the quantitative data analysis. In this regard, the theoretical flexibility of thematic analysis enabled the researcher to conduct a qualitative data analysis that was sensitive to the previous quantitative findings. It does not necessarily mean that the quantitative findings completely orient the analysis.

144

Despite the advantages of thematic analysis, this analytical approach has its weaknesses.

First, researchers might build biased arguments based on an unfounded analysis: that is, the interpretations are not backed up by or are even contradicted by the data. Many scholars have noticed the issue in their accounts (e.g., Jones et al. 2000; King and Horrocks 2010; Guest et al. 2012; Sparks and Smith 2013). To assess the quality of thematic analysis, correspondent feedback (member validation) is applied to the findings of thematic analysis based on King and Horrocks’ (2010) suggestion. In other words, all the participants in the interviews are invited to re-examine whether and how well the researchers’ interpretations match their intentional meanings. Additionally, the degree of coherence between the findings of the quantitative and qualitative phases can provide further evidence of the validation of the qualitative findings.

Second, the flexibility of thematic analysis might have a negative influence on the validation and the reliability of the qualitative findings. As a flexible analytical method, thematic analysis is widely used yet ‘poorly demarcated, rarely acknowledged’ (Braun and Clarke 2006: 77). In this regard, one might question the quality of the findings of the thematic analysis due to the unsystematic procedures of data analysis and inexplic it methodological arrangements (e.g., a decision to give a rich description of the data set or its particular aspects) that are adopted or chosen by the researcher. To introduce a more systematic and rigorous method of data analysis, the following section answers some core questions that relate to the design of thematic analysis in this current research (e.g. the procedure of analysis and how the ‘themes’ were detected and selected).

Firstly, considering the nature of this analytical approach (as part of this explorative,

145

sequential and mixed-method current research), the analysis is social constructio nist rather than essentialist or realist. According to Braun and Clarke, the terms essentialist and realist refer to the researcher’s epistemological tendency to ‘theorise motivatio ns, experience, and meaning in a straightforward way’ by assuming a unidirectio na l relationship between meaning, language and experience (2006: 14). In contrast, Braun and Clarke go on to argue that constructionist-oriented researchers are inclined to unravel social structures which shape individuals’ practices. Regarding the characteristics of the two approaches, I argue that the latter method is a more practical way to present the socio-cultural meaning of the visitors’ cultural tastes, and therefore should be applied when conducting further data analysis.

Lastly, the criteria of determining the themes were not based on the prevalence of the themes in the data, but how they could be used to understand the visitors’ cultura l preferences and interpretations. Braun and Clarke in their article define the term ‘theme’

as follows: ‘A theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set’ (2006: 10). For Braun and Clarke, a qualified theme should achieve a certain level of prevalence/frequency within each data item as well as prevalence across the entire data set. They also believe that there are many ways to define the term prevalence rather than exclusively considering it as a quantifiable measure. In this current research, prevalence is primarily determined by how efficiently a pattern can represent the visitors’ interpretation of the contemporary artwork rather than the frequency in which it emerges across the whole data set. The main reason for adopting this criterion was as follows: the aims of this research phase were to explore the specific forms of interpretive pattern that the visitors utilised to engage with the cultural forms,

146

and how the visitors forged their cultural tastes within China’s socio-cultural context and structural conditions. The characteristics of the current study determine that, if the visitors tended to differentiate their cultural profiles by preferring a specific set of cultural goods in relation to the homology of their categorical identities, some key themes may be less likely to be the most prevalent across the data set. For instance, a tendency to interpret contemporary artwork as ‘advanced’ cultural forms may only represent the attitude of a limited number of the visitors. In this respect, how practically and efficiently the theme could be used to understand the visitors was more important than the prevalence of the theme in the data.

In summary, the above section has introduced the definition, advantages, and weaknesses of the two primary analytic tools and to what extent those two methods can be deemed as satisfactory methods in this current research. The following part of this chapter engages with the practical aspects of the methodological arrangements of this current research. Specifically, Section 4.4 introduces the principles of survey participants’ recruitment and research ethics, questionnaire and interview question design, and museums and galleries selection.

4.4 Survey participants’ recruitment and research ethics, questionnaire and