AR

TIG

O A

RT

ICLE

621

1 Centro Latino-Americanode Estudos de Violência eSaúde (Claves), EscolaNacional de Saúde Pública(Ensp), Fundação OswaldoCruz. Av. Brasil 4036/700,Manguinhos. 21040-361Rio de Janeiro RJ.maminayo@terra.com.br

Análise qualitativa: teoria, passos e fidedignidade

Qualitative analysis: theory, steps and reliability

Resumo Neste ensaio busca-se aprofundar a re-flexão sobre o processo de análise na pesquisa qua-litativa a partir de autores referenciais e da expe-riência da própria autora. O texto está organiza-do em forma de decálogo por meio do qual é trata-do o tema processualmente. A hipótese é de queuma análise para ser fidedigna precisa conter ostermos estruturantes da investigação qualitativaque são os verbos: compreender e interpretar; e ossubstantivos: experiência, vivência, senso comume ação social. A seguir a proposta avança por 10passos que se iniciam na construção científica doobjeto pela sua colocação no âmbito do conheci-mento nacional e internacional, na elaboraçãode instrumentos que tornem concretos os concei-tos teóricos, na execução de um trabalho de cam-po que envolva empaticamente o investigador nouso de vários tipos de técnicas e abordagens, tor-nando-o um construtor de relações, de observa-ções e de uma narrativa em perspectiva. Por fim,a autora trata da análise propriamente dita, mos-trando como o objeto, que já vem pensado em to-das as etapas anteriores, deve se tornar um cons-truto de segunda ordem, em que predomine a ló-gica dos atores em sua diversidade e não apenas assuas falas, dentro de uma narrativa teorizada, con-textualizada, concisa e clara.Palavras-chave Análise qualitativa, Pesquisaqualitativa, Compreender, Interpretar, Dialetizar

Abstract This essay seeks to conduct in-depthanalysis of qualitative research, based on bench-mark authors and the author’s own experience.The hypothesis is that in order for an analysis tobe considered reliable, it needs to be based on struc-turing terms of qualitative research, namely theverbs ‘comprehend’ and ‘interpret’, and the nouns‘experience’, ‘common sense’ and ‘social action’.The 10 steps begin with the construction of thescientific object by its inclusion on the nationaland international agenda; the development of toolsthat make the theoretical concepts tangible; con-ducting field work that involves the researcherempathetically with the participants in the use ofvarious techniques and approaches, making itpossible to build relationships, observations anda narrative with perspective. Finally, the authordeals with the analysis proper, showing how theobject, which has already been studied in all theprevious steps, should become a second-order con-struct, in which the logic of the actors in theirdiversity and not merely their speech predomi-nates. The final report must be a theoretic, con-textual, concise and clear narrative.Key words Qualitative analysis, Qualitative re-search, Comprehension, Interpretation, Dialectics

Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo 1

622M

inay

o M

CS

Introductionand text construction strategy

In this article I present a reflection about the qual-itative analysis of studies with an empirical base.The text has two sources of inspiration: firstly, thevarious authors with whom I have been engagedin dialogue for over 25 years. The second is myown experience as an investigator, thesis and dis-sertation advisor and professor in the area of col-lective health. Although most of the elements con-sidered here are important for any kind of quali-tative analysis, I use particularly the approachwhich I call hermeneutic-dialectic, that is, the onewhich seeks comprehension and criticism simul-taneously in both the understanding and inter-pretation processes. Starting with my own expe-rience, I highlight that from all the requests I re-ceive from students and colleagues, the most re-curring one relates to how to analyze qualitativematerial. It is as if all other research phases, projectpreparation and field work constitute very simplestages that are easy to resolve, in contrast with thedifficulties of how to deal with empirical and doc-umental findings. This concern arises because qual-itative studies differ from quantitative studies,where data collected in a standardized way andtackled with sophisticated analysis techniques al-lows the researcher some confidence in his study’sreliability. This confidence should nonetheless bequestioned1. In the case of qualitative research,many other problems – which are in fact part ofits own contingency and condition – make it dif-ficult to know beforehand if the information gath-ered and the analyses created could be consideredvalid and sufficient.

I have divided this work into two parts. In thefirst, I show that a good analysis begins with un-derstanding and internalizing the philosophicaland epistemological terms that form the basis ofthe investigation and, from a practical point ofview, when we begin defining the object. In thesecond part, I discuss the analysis process itself.

To do Science is to work simultaneously withtheory, method and techniques, from a perspec-tive in which this tripod mutually conditions it-self: the way of doing depends on what the objectdemands, and the response to the object dependson the questions, instruments and strategies usedin data collection. To this trilogy I always addthat the quality of an analysis also depends onthe investigator’s art, experience and capacity fordeepening, which set the tone and temper of thework he is creating.

I have tried to point out some crucial ques-tions that provide the reference points of objecti-

vation2,3 and of the incomplete, provisional4-6 andapproximate character of knowledge7.

Discussion

The premises for discussion of qualitative analy-sis are presented in decalogue form, in an attemptto facilitate understanding for those who seek tofamiliarize themselves with the qualitative ap-proach.

First: To know the structuring terms of qual-itative research. Your raw material is made up ofa set of nouns with complementary senses: expe-rience, lived experience, common sense and ac-tion. And the movement that informs any ap-proach or analysis is based on three verbs: under-stand, interpret and dialectize8.

The term experience, historically used byHeidegger9, relates to what human beings appre-hend in the place they occupy in the world and inthe actions they perform. The sense of experienceis understanding: human beings are by under-standing themselves and their significance in theworld of life9. As it constitutes human existence,experience increases reflection and is expressed inlanguage. However, language does not bring pureexperience, as it is organized by the subject viareflection and interpretation in movement whatthe subject narrated and lives are ingrained in andby culture, preceding narrative and the narrator10.As for lived experience, it is the product of per-sonal reflection on experience. Although experi-ence can be the same for various individuals (sib-lings in the same family or people who witness anevent, for example), each person’s lived experienceof the event is unique and depends on their per-sonality, their biography and their participationin history. Although it is personal, each lived ex-perience is supported by the ingredients of thecollective where the individual lives the conditionswith which it occurs. Common sense can be de-fined as a body of knowledge springing from theexperiences and lived experiences that guide hu-man beings in the various actions and situationsof their lives6,9-11. It is made up of opinions, val-ues, beliefs and ways of thinking, feeling, relatingand acting. Common sense is expressed in lan-guage, in attitude and conduct and is the base ofhuman understanding. Given its character of ex-pressing experiences and lived experiences, com-mon sense is the ground for qualitative studies.Action (human and social) can be defined as theexercise of individuals, groups and institutions toconstruct their lives and cultural artifacts basedon the conditions they find in reality. The concept

623C

iência & Saúde C

oletiva, 17(3):621-626, 2012

of action is linked to the notion of freedom to actand transform the world, which, to Heidegger4,does not constitute a place but rather a complexmade up of the significance of experiences thatmake human beings historical beings.

The main verb of qualitative analysis is un-un-un-un-un-dddddeeeeerrrrrstandstandstandstandstand. To understand is to put yourself inanother’s place, bearing in mind that, as humanbeings, we are able to exercise this understand-ing6. To understand, we must consider the indi-vidual’s uniqueness, because his subjectivity is amanifestation of total living. But we must alsoknow that a person’s experience and lived experi-ence occur within the scope of collective historyand are contextualized and enveloped by the cul-ture of the group that person is inserted in. Allunderstanding is partial and unfinished; both thatof our interviewee, who has a contingent and in-complete understanding of his life and his world,and the researchers’, because we are also limited inwhat we understand and interpret. When we seekto understand we must also exercise the under-standing of contradictions: the being who under-stands, understands in language and action andboth are characterized by being conflicting andcontradictory due to the effects of power, socialrelations of production, social inequalities andinterests12.

To interpret is a continuous act that followsunderstanding and is also present in it: all under-standing contains the possibility of interpretation,that is, of appropriation of what is understood.Interpretation is existentially founded on under-standing and not vice-versa, as to interpret is toelaborate the possibilities projected by what isunderstood6,9.

Second – Define the object in the form of aquestion or a problematizing sentence and the-orize it ––––– The initial question guides the investi-gator during the course of his work. His analyti-cal reflection, at this moment, is directed at ade-quately outlining the object in time and in space: itshould not be so broad as to allow only a super-ficial view and not so restricted as to complicatethe understanding of its interconnections. Thedefinition of an object does not reside in the ques-tion itself, but in its clarification and contextual-ization via theorization, which turns it into a con-structed scientific fact. It is obvious that clarityabout the object – which will never be total anddefinitive – can only be reached at the end of re-search. Any investigation is no more than thesearch to answer the initial question. As Pascal13

reminds us, a work’s conclusion should alreadybe latent in its formulation, because all things arecaused and causative.

In order to turn the object into a scientific con-struct it is necessary to invest in national and in-ternational accumulated knowledge, dialoguingwith it or around it, in case there are no studiesabout the same subjects, as occurs in exploratoryinvestigations. Once the research sources have beenanalyzed, the investigator must choose what the-oretical framework to adopt, detailing the con-cepts, the categories and the notions that makesense to his research. This is also the moment toput forward, in a more substantiated way, thehypotheses and presuppositions that already ex-isted as intuitions in the initial questions.

Third – Outline the field strategies. It isimportant to bear in mind that operational in-struments also contain theoretical bases: they aremade up of sentences (in the case of scripts) ororientations (in the case of field observation)which should be closely linked with the theoreticalframework, with each of these elements being atype of operative concept thought up during theinitial theorization.

Fourth – Visit the research setting informal-ly, aiming to observe the processes which occurin it. It is necessary to go to the field withoutformal intentions and expand the degree of confi-dence about approaching the object, including, ifpossible, performing some open interviews, pro-moting the redesign of hypotheses, presupposi-tions and instruments, and seeking fine tuningbetween the theoretical framework and the firstentries of reality. The analytical gaze should ac-company the whole trajectory of field approach.

Fifth – Go to the field carrying theory andhypotheses, but open to questioning them. It isnecessary to immerge in empirical reality in searchof information envisaged or not envisaged in theinitial script. As Malinowski14 teaches in his classicwork about the principles of anthropological ap-proach, it is fundamental to have all theoreticalmaterials drawn up and all operational instru-ments ready and available, as if the investigation’ssuccess depended on them alone. But it is alsocrucial to be so attentive and open to novelties inthe field that, if necessary, the investigator can letgo of his certainties in favor of the inflows of real-ity. As Lévy-Strauss15 reminds us:

Field work is the mother and nurturer of everyanthropological doubt (…) which consists in know-ing that we know nothing, also in exposing whatwe thought we knew, to people who [in the field]can contradict [our dearest truths].

In effective field work, the researcher builds areport made up of personal statements and sub-jective views from interlocutors, where the wordsof some are added to those of others and are com-

624M

inay

o M

CS

posed or contrast with the observations. It is grat-ifying when he is able to weave a collective story ornarrative, from which lived experiences and expe-riences, with their wealth and contradictions, standout. At this moment, the researcher is already ableto piece together the information he receives like apuzzle, and to enrich it, he seeks new interlocutorsand makes new observations. It is important tohighlight that a collective report does not mean ahomogenous story but rather a story where thevarious interests and views have a place and thepossibility of expression. Bertaux16 considers goodfield work to be at the same time the constructionof a representation of the socio-anthropologicalobject. Both in observation and in interlocutionwith actors, the investigator is an active actor, whoasks, interprets and develops a critical gaze.

Sixth – Order and organize secondary andempirical material and become pervaded by thefield information and observations. It is neces-sary to work on understanding the materialbrought from the field, giving it value, emphasis,space and time. Bearing in mind that the analysisof qualitative material is supported by the verbsand nouns mentioned in the first decalogue point,any attempt to perform it in a merely technicalmanner will impoverish the results.

Ordering constitutes organizational work: (1)of the theoretical and reference texts that guidedthe project and now need to be complemented;(2) of the observation material, which is generallycontained in the field diary, a legitimate source ofinformation for composing the analysis; (3) ofany geographical, historical, statistical and insti-tutional documents that may exist, have been re-searched and are likely to help contextualize theobject; (4) of the interviews, focus group resultsand other primary sources (which should havebeen unrecorded if the interlocution was mediat-ed by recordings). The elements cited in items 1,2,and 3 are contextual. Those in item 4 relate to thecontent of the words and observations whichshould, from that point onwards, be given prior-ity in an attentive, reiterative and question-filledreading. I usually call this movement “pervasion”or “saturation”.

Seventh – Construct the typification of thematerial collected in the field and make the tran-sition between empiricism and theoretical for-mation. The typification process is denser and moreintense than the exercise of ordering, but it has thesame purpose: appropriation of the wealth of fieldinformation, trying, as much as possible, not to“contaminate” it via a premature interpretation. Itmust be made clear that there is no such thing as amind empty of prior facts or empty of theories

and ideology. The sense of the understanding ef-fort is to give maximum value to field findings. Forthis purpose, it is important: (1) to organize thereports and observation data in a certain order.For example, if the empirical research was per-formed with groups differentiated by social class,age, gender, religion, and historical periods (theseare all hypothetical divisions), then various sub-sets must be created, aiming at a reading of homo-geneities and differentiations for it to be possible todraw comparisons between the various subsets.(2) The horizontal pervasion readings give way toa transversal creation of the set or each subset ofempirical material, with a specific intention: to cutout each text item, as it was presented by the inter-viewees10. All this cutting and pasting effort can betechnically organized into subsets or drawers, di-vided by subject, as the first stage of material clas-sification; (3) Then, the researcher takes a furtherstep in understanding the relevance structures pre-sented by the interviewees. The material containedin the many drawers must undergo a new readingand organization in order to be rearranged intofour or five topics that the interviewees highlight-ed, above all, through reiteration. The synthesiseffort reduces the number of subsets but does notdiminish the wealth of information. It only reclas-sifies it, emphasizing which are the relevance struc-tures found in the field study. Within each topic,the questions must be dealt with in their homoge-neity and in their internal differentiations. A classi-fication movement that prioritizes the sense of fieldmaterial must not seek an essentialist truth in it,but rather the meaning expressed by the inter-viewees.

This fundamental moment, where the re-searcher gradually arrives at the sense of the wordsand their empirical contextualization, I call theinternal logic of the actors, of the groups, or thesegment. As soon as he understands the sense ofwhat was reported to him and what he observedin the field, the researcher no longer needs to ad-here to words: his imprisonment to them is oneof the greatest weaknesses of those who performqualitative analysis, because it means the investi-gator has not been able to surpass the descriptivelevel of his empirical material. As Canguillem17

reminds us: Truth only gains meaning at the end ofa controversy. Thus there can be no first truth.There are only first mistakes. First evidence is nev-er a fundamental truth.

Eighth – Exercise secondary interpretation.The understanding engendered by the deep, at-tentive and pervasive reading that gave origin tothe empirical categories or sense units, at thismoment, merits a new theorization process. It

625C

iência & Saúde C

oletiva, 17(3):621-626, 2012

could happen that the theoretical references whichprovided fundamental reference points for the startof the investigation are not enough to contem-plate the interpretation of field findings. In theform of topics, in the case of an article, or chap-ters, in the case of book creation, each of the senseunits should then be given a reading of nationaland international references, so as to place theclassified material in the context of the nationaland international questions that it raises. And it isequally important to enrich the whole set of wordsand observations with historical and contextualelements: so that, from his “village”, the research-er talks to the world and about the world, in anunderstanding and critical manner.

Interpretation will never be the last word aboutthe object studied, because the sense of a messageor a reality is always open in many directions.However, when it is well-conducted, it should beso faithful to the field that, if the interviewees werepresent, they would share the analysis results.Gadamer6 adds, drawing on the thinking of sev-eral authors such as Dilthey18 and Schleiermarch-er19, that interpretation must go beyond the in-terviewees and surprise them, because when theygave their statements, they were not aware of ev-erything it would be possible to understand, basedon their words, about their time, their contempo-raries and the society in which they live.

Ninth – Produce a text which is at the sametime faithful to the field findings, contextual-ized and accessible. The conclusion of a qualita-tive analysis must present a text capable of trans-mitting concise, coherent and, as far as possible,reliable information. This is because the final re-search report forms a synthesis in which the studyobject envelops and pervades the entire text. Thecontext, the closest and most abstract determina-tions, in this heavy concrete20 stage, emanate fromthe object and not vice versa. Therefore, we con-sider work to be incomplete or poor if it only de-scribes what was found in the field. But under-standing and interpretation, in their final form,also mark a moment in the researcher’s praxis.For this reason, it will never be a finished workand its conclusions must be open to new ques-tionings. In his exposition, it is important for theauthor to include his conditions and difficulties ofinterpretation, as they are part of the objectivationof reality and his own objectivation21.

Tenth – Ensure the criteria of reliability andvalidity. Popper22 reminds us that objectivity is asocial question of scientists, involving reciprocalcriticism and the hostile-friendly division of theirwork, their cooperation or also their competition.But the verification criteria must be ensured, and

the scientist must have a degree of attachment tohis proposal and his methods, says Popper, be-cause if we subject ourselves to criticism too easily,we will never find out where the real strength ofour theories is22. In order to safeguard reliability,we suggest a few steps: (1) The first is the one thatguides all scientific research universally: adequatetheory, method and techniques, described and ableto be evaluated by any other investigator. (2) As itrequires the researcher’s presence, personal in-volvement and interaction throughout the pro-cess, a good qualitative analysis should explain itsfield actions, as well as its interests and difficultiesin constructing the object. There are some othermeasures that can be taken during the investiga-tion process to ensure a greater degree of validity:(3) internal triangulation of the investigation’s ownapproach23, which means looking at the objectfrom its various angles, comparing the results oftwo or more data collection techniques and twoor more information sources, for example; (4)validation of the reports, comparing the wordswith field observations; (5) being alert to the re-ports and facts that contradict the investigator’sproposals and hypotheses, analyzing them andpresenting them, rather than hiding them; and(6) reliability in dealing with the various points ofview, ensuring the diversity of senses expressed bythe interlocutors, escaping the idea of a singletruth.

Conclusions

Before I finish these reflections, I would like topoint out that many technological artefacts haverecently been created to produce qualitative anal-yses. There are researchers who use them and cer-tainly find them to be an important support, asthe work of Pope and Mays24 shows.

Maybe because of my habit of being analyti-cally and critically present in every investigationstage, I find it very difficult to outsource the ana-lytical task to these devices, as only one stage isfocused on and the intersubjective context, whichcannot be dissociated from and is a fundamentalpart of qualitative research and, therefore, of theanalysis process, is not considered.

That is why, in this text, all reflection presup-poses the researcher’s presence and monitoring inevery step of the work, in a movement that simul-taneously adds to the previous phase and over-comes it. The investigator’s implication in the workbecomes a circular perspective: he only knows re-ality insofar as he creates it25. Based on this un-derstanding, I believe that not even a good con-

626M

inay

o M

CS

tent technician-analyst can guarantee the qualityof a final text when he is not aware of the condi-tions of his production.

The recognition that there is complementarypolarity between subject and object in the qualita-tive scientific construction process leads, in its turn,to the need for a methodological effort that en-sures objectivation, that is, the production of ananalysis which is as systematic and profound aspossible and which minimizes subjectivism, sup-position and spontaneity. In this sense, withoutcontradicting what I said in the previous para-graph, it is necessary to value techniques: for thesystematic review or narrative of the initial ques-tioning, turning it into a considered object; for thecreation of hypotheses which are consistent withthe question and can guide the work; for the con-struction of the instruments that must transform

the concept into observable items or into guidesfor field conversations; for the creation of a narra-tive about the object which also considers the care-fully-performed preparation and overcomes it,bringing new findings and relevancies; to orga-nize, categorize, contextualize and construct thefinal report, always the fruit of a provisional anal-ysis.

The analytical and systematic course, there-fore, permits the objectivation of a type of knowl-edge whose raw materials are human and socialopinions, beliefs, values, representations, rela-tions and actions from the perspective of actorsin intersubjectivity. Thus, the qualitative analysisof an investigation object concretizes the possi-bility of knowledge construction and contains allthe requirements and instruments to be consid-ered and valued as a scientific construct.

Malinowski B. Os Argonautas do Pacífico Ocidental.São Paulo: Abril Cultural; 1978. (Coleção Os Pen-sadores)Lévy-Strauss C. Introdution à l’ouevre de MarcelMauss. In: Mauss M. Sociologie et anthropologie.Paris: Presses Universitaire de France; 1950. p. 220.Bertaux D. Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie. Pa-ris: Presses Universitaires de France; 1980.Canguilhem G. O normal e o patológico. Rio deJaneiro: Editora Forense Universitária; 1978.Dilthey W. Introducción a las Ciencias del Espíritu.Madrid: Ed. Revista del Ocidente; 1956.Schleiermacher FI. Hermenêutica: arte e técnica dainterpretação. 2ªed. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2000.Marx K. Para a crítica da economia política. São Pau-lo: Nova Cultural; 1991. (Coleção Os Pensadores)Geertz C. Nova luz sobre a antropologia. Rio de Ja-neiro: Jorge Zahar Editor; 2001Popper KR. Lógica das ciências sociais. Brasília: Uni-versidade de Brasília; 1978.Denzin N, editor. The research act in sociology: atheoretical introduction to sociological method.New York: McGraw-Hill; 1970.Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Research in health care.Massassuchets: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2006.Kosik K. Dialética do concreto. Rio de Janeiro: Paz eTerra; 1969.

Presented in 01/09/2011Aproved in 12/10/2011Final version presented in 16/10/2011

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

References

Adorno M, Horcheimer TW. Sociológica. Madrid:Editora Taurus; 1991.Demo P. Introdução à metodologia científica. SãoPaulo: Atlas; 1988.Minayo MCS. O desafio do conhecimento. 12ª ed.São Paulo: Editora Hucitec; 2010.Heidegger M. Heidegger. São Paulo: Editora Abril;1980. (Coleção Os Pensadores)Habermas J. Teoria da ação comunicativa. Madrid:Taurus; 1999.Gadamer HG. Verdade e método. Tradução de Flá-vio Paulo Meurer. 3ª edição. Petrópolis: Vozes; 1999.Bachelard G. Essai sur la connaissance approchée.Paris: J.Vrin Editeur; 1927.Minayo MCS. Los conceptos estructurantes de lainvestigación cualitativa. Salud colectiva [periódicona Internet]. 2010 [acessado 2011 ago 17]; 6(3):251-261. Disponível em: <http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1851-82652010000300002&lng=es&nrm=iso>.Heidegger M. Ser e tempo. Petrópolis: Vozes; 1988.Schütz A. The Phenomenology of the Social World.Translation G. Walsh and F. Lehnert. Evanston: Nor-thwestern University Press; 1967.Merleau-Ponty M. Fenomenologia da percepção. Tra-dução de Reginaldo de Pietro. São Paulo: FreitasBastos; 2006.Habermas J. Dialética e Hermenêutica – para a críti-ca da hermenêutica de Gadamer. Porto Alegre:L&PM; 1987.Pascal B. Pensamentos. São Paulo: Abril Cultural;1979.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.10.

11.

12.

13.