CASE ORIENTED COMPARISON

Ob servational Un its Explanatory Units Figure 12

The process of comparison takes place in two stages. The observational units that are created by contextual deconstruction of the transcriptions, are compared one-to-one. The results of each one- to-one comparison are listed alphabetically in separate tables. Then all the results of the one-to-one

comparisons are put in one single list where I separate only those which appear 45 times. These new dialectical pairs comprise the explanatory units on which reconstruction is based.

According to Ragin (1987), investigators who use case-oriented methods combine causal analysis, interpretative analysis, and concept formation. This method is relatively insensitive to the frequency distribution of types of cases. A single case can cast doubt on a cause-effect relationship established on the basis of many observations. Thus, notions of sampling and sampling distributions are less relevant to this approach, because it is not concerned with the relative distribution

of cases with different patterns of causes and effects. More important than relative frequency is the variety of meaningful patterns of causes and effects that exist.

Case-oriented methods force investigators to consider their cases as whole entities. Researchers examine cases as wholes, not as collections of variables. An interest in interpreting specific cases and in pin-pointing the combination of conditions, the causal complexes that produce specific outcomes, encourages investigators to view cases as wholes. Thus the different parts or conditions that

make up a case are understood in relation to each other. Finally case-oriented

methods stimulate a rich dialogue between ideas and evidence. These methods are flexible in their approach to the evidence - few simplifying assumptions are made - they do not restrict or constrain the examination of evidence and they do not force investigators to view causal conditions as opponents in the struggle to explain variation. Instead, they provide a basis for examining how conditions combine in

different ways and in different context to produce different outcomes.

«The case oriented approach works well when the number of relevant cases is relatively small. The comparison of two to four positive cases with the same number of negative cases is manageable. As the number of cases and the number of relevant causal conditions increase, however, it becomes more and more difficult to use a case-oriented approach. When there are only as few cases, as is the rule in many comparative historical investigations, it is not difficult to identify similarities because the researcher usually has (or tries to establish) an intimate familiarity with relevant cases.» (Ragin, 1987: 49-50).

One of the most valuable features of the case-oriented approach, is the fact that it engenders an extensive dialogue between the investigator’s ideas and the data. This makes it possible to address causal complexes - to examine the conjunctures in time and space that produce the important social changes and other phenomena that are in the interests of the social scientists and their audiences. I think that the case-oriented strategy is best suited to this analysis because I have a relatively small set of cases. I see, each case as a whole - as a total situation. Each case is compared and contrasted with all the other relevant cases,

and then all the cases are compared together as an ordered and meaningful

combinationsof parts.

The whole process is again elaborate and demands a high degree of concentration. In the beginning I do a table where I put the lists with the dialectical pairs of each case (Table 9). These pairs constitute my observational units: the entities that I compare. My conversations from now on are considered as cases for comparison. Then I compare each list of dialectical pairs with all the others (the first list with the second, the first with the third, the second with the third, the second with the fourth, the third with the fourth, etc.). I locate the dialectical pairs that are similar in the two cases (Table 10), until I complete 45 comparisons (all the possible combinations among the 10 discussants).

The comparison of the dialectical pairs one-to-one is done by putting all the dialectical pairs of the two cases that I compare each time together in one single list (for example I make a list with the dialectical pairs of the first and the second cases). Then I categorise the dialectical pairs in the new list alphabetically. Then I read the list carefully and each time I find a dialectical pair that appears twice I take it out of the list and put it in a new one. This process is difficult because there are several cases in which spelling mistakes (for example psace-time instead of space-time or tsability-continuity instead of stability-continuity) or in cases where the dialectical pairs appear with the concepts reversed (like other-self instead of self-other or work-unemployment instead of unemployment-work) can lead to the wrong results. In these cases I go through the lists again and correct all the spelling mistakes and adopt a single form of appearance for all the cases.

After I finish all 45 one-to-one comparisons, I proceed to the next stage of comparison. That is to integrate the dialectical pairs from the 45 comparisons in a single list. The lists with the dialectical pairs from each case are put under each

other so to create a long list that has 2,015 dialectical pairs. These dialectical pairs do not appear only one time. Some of them do, but some of them appear more than once, but no more than 45 times. The dialectical pairs in the new long list are categorised alphabetically in order to locate them and count them easily.

CASE Vicky Eleni Miguel Vangelis Sylvie Justin Andreas Justina Erika Gregorio

1 91 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10

2 Vicky-Eleni _{95 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10}

3 Vicky-

Miguel Miguel Eleni- 222 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10

4 Vicky-

Vangelis Vangelis Eleni- Vangelis Miguel- 219 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10

5 Vicky-

Sylvie Eleni-Sylvie Miguel-Sylvie Vangelis-Sylvie 155 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10

6 Vicky-Justin Eleni-Justin Miguel-

Justin Vangelis-Justin Sylvie-Justin 359 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10

7 Vicky-

Andreas Andreas Eleni- Andreas Miguel- Vangelis-Andreas Andreas Sylvie- Andreas Justin- 386 7-8 7-9 7-10

8 Vicky- Justina Eleni- Justina Miguel- Justina Vangelis- Justina Sylvie- Justina Justin- Justina Andreas- Justina 195 8-9 8-10

9 Vicky-Erika Eleni-Erika Miguel-

Erika Vangelis-Erika Sylvie-Erika Justin-Erika Andreas-Erika Justina-Erika 277 9-10

10 Vicky-

Gregorio Gregorio Eleni- Gregorio Miguel- Vangelis-Gregorio Gregorio Sylvie- Gregorio Justin- Gregorio Andreas- Gregorio Justina- Gregorio Erika- 160

Table 9

The dialectical pairs in each conversation are compared one-to-one.

After I count them I single out the dialectical pairs that are common in all cases. This can be done initially by making a similar list of the dialectical pairs that I created for the ten cases separately. Then I count the dialectical pairs that appear 10 times and this counting gives my final result. I do this counting at the end to double check the final result. The dialectical pairs in the new list can appear 1,

3(1+2), 6(1+2+3), 10(1+2+3+4), 15(1+2+3+4+5), 21(1+2+3+4+5+6), 28(1+2+3+4+5+6+7),

36(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8) or 45(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9) times.

CASE Vicky Eleni Miguel Vangelis Sylvie Justin Andreas Justina Erika Gregorio

1 91 22 40 36 24 40 34 26 36 38 2 22 95 36 49 28 44 28 29 29 40 3 40 36 222 69 37 67 61 60 60 44 4 36 49 69 219 44 47 70 58 68 56 5 24 28 37 44 155 54 50 53 52 35 6 40 44 67 47 54 359 124 81 115 62 7 34 28 61 70 50 124 386 85 105 40 8 26 29 60 58 53 81 85 195 64 47 9 36 29 60 68 52 115 105 64 277 44 10 38 40 44 56 35 62 40 47 44 160 Table 10

The table shows the total number of dialectical pairs for each case (grey boxes) and the number of common dialectical pairs after the comparison one-to-one (white boxes).

This counting is based on Table 9 that shows the initial one-to-one comparisons (counting one extra comparison each time starting from the box which represents the first comparison between cases 1 and 2). Then I read through the new list carefully. I double and triple-check the times that each dialectical pair appears in the list. I finally count 6 dialectical pairs that appear 45 times. Time- Space, Self-Other, Initiation-Termination, Unemployment-Work, Change-Stability and Movement-Stability. This is my final result. This result is checked again by making a list of all the dialectical pairs that I create for each case separately. The common dialectical pairs appear 10 times each (ten pairs for each case).

The whole process of counting checking and double checking the numbers is demanding for two reasons. The first reason is that there is not a software package that can help me with the counting of the pairs. My only tool for the counting is the word counter in the word processor. The second reason is that this process demands a high degree of concentration. A small mistake that might seem insignificant in the beginning of the analysis, like missing out a concept or forgetting to do the spelling check, can cause a disaster at the end (domino effect). Checking and double checking the number of the concepts in the lists of conceptual input, and the lists of the dialectical pairs takes an enormous amount of time.

3.3. Contextual reconstruction

In this chapter I discuss how I go back, and check the transcriptions, to find those phrases in which the common dialectical pairs are located. So far, the importance of the contribution of the other in the analysis remains fairly asymmetrical, regardless of my attempt to replace the monologue with dialogue. In order to show that the similar dialectical pairs among the ten cases relate to students‘ personal experiences, I do what Asad (1986) suggests: re-frame that, which is appropriated, by bringing together the similarities in a story (Okely & Callaway, 1992: 78). The first step towards this direction, is done by re-framing the ten deconstructed texts under the light of the comparative results. This whole process of reconstruction is done as in deconstruction, only this time I move backwards (Figure 13). RE CO NS T R U C T ION Contextual Representation Conceptual Input Contextual Dialectics Explanatory Units TEXT Figure 13

Contextual reconstruction takes place at three stages. This time I move backwards as I did in deconstruction. Based on the explanatory units of the comparison, I choose those paraphrased sentences in which I record the concepts that appear in the similar dialectical pairs (explanatory

units).

Starting from the comparative results that now are put in question or as Culler (1983) suggests they have to be exposed as rhetorical strategies by the texts that rely on them for support, I reconstruct the deconstructed texts in the following stages. First I locate in each deconstructed text the similar dialectical

pairs as they appear after the comparison. Then I break the similar dialectical pairs to their concepts and then I locate the sentences in which these concepts appear (Table 11). I refer to the paraphrased sentences (§1, §5a, §6, §7, §17b, etc.) where I locate these concepts (Table 12). Finally I go back to the transcribed text where I refer to the number of the paragraph by quoting to the words of the discussant (Table 13). The procedure of reconstruction completes the circle of analysis of my evidence, within the context of the deconstructed transcriptions.