ABSTRACT
If the analysis of the previous chapter is correct, then interpretation and meaning attribution presuppose a theory of some kind. Meaning does not reside in the text, so the idea that IPA can be based exclusively on ‘a reading from within the text itself ’ (Smith et al. 2009: 37), or ‘a close reading of what is already in the passage’ (105), has to be questioned. The same question, of course, can be asked of any form of qualitative analysis, despite the rhetoric of ‘emergent themes’ (a metaphor that quietly implies that the researcher’s role in this ‘emergence’ is minimal). Some authors do address this concern: ‘When coding, are researchers active or passive? Are they merely observ ing patterns or meanings that “emerge” from the data, or are they actively invent ing codes?’ (Packer 2011: 79). My answer is that any code, theme, concept, comment, classification, or category adds to, and sometimes modifies, the data. By definition, it brings to the data something that does not intrinsically belong to it; and the only place this something can come from is the researcher.
