S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

160

research question’ (Braun et al., 2013). The researcher undertook this by asking and re asking the following rhetorical questions (Frechtling & Westat, 1997); • What patterns and common themes emerge in responses dealing with specific items? How do these patterns (or lack thereof) help to illuminate the broader study question(s)? • Are there any deviations from these patterns? If yes, are there any factors that might explain these atypical responses? • What interesting stories emerge from the responses? How can these stories help to illuminate the broader study question(s)? • Do any of these patterns or findings suggest that additional data may need to be collected? Do any of the study questions need to be revised? • Do the patterns that emerge corroborate the findings of any corresponding qualitative analyses that have been conducted? If not, what might explain these discrepancies? At this stage, unlike quantitative researchers who need to explain ‘away’ deviant or exceptional cases, the researcher as a qualitative analyst was challenged by these in the data. Miles and Huberman (1994) discuss ‘checking the meaning of outliers’ and ‘using extreme cases’ (p. 269, 270). In qualitative analysis deviant instances or cases that do not appear to fit the pattern or trend were not treated as statistical outliers. Rather, deviant or exceptional cases were appropriated as a challenge to further elaborate and verify any evolving themes. For example the lack of representativeness of mental health practitioners in the case, required the researcher not just to accept this, but to inquire why?