You’re right, but may have misconstrued the purpose of the article, so let me clarify a couple of things just to be sure we understand each other.

We *all* do analysis work of one form or another. Basically, if you’re conducting research, then you’ll be analysing it. I’m not suggesting that people aren’t doing analysis: I’m saying that the way we talk about analysis, and write about analysis, can be pretty fluffy on the detail.

What I set out above is an attempt to provide us all with some shared language we can use to describe the techniques that we’re already using – I don’t think I’m introducing anything new by way of technique.

The other thing I’d clear up is that the above do not represent a process: I’ve presented a collection of techniques that are combined in different ways to perform analysis appropriate to the data and our objectives. I’m hoping that by doing so we’ll all be in a better position to articulate more precisely what we’re doing.

The last thing I’ll mention is that the above tasks are about analysis; deconstruction is just one of them. Perhaps the choice of title is confusing in that respect.

Cheers, Steve

Having completed this set of deconstruction tasks a good number of times, I have never used a formalised approach. However more a reserve engineering of the process, the interesting thing is that the process I do use, although not formal, is very similar to the one you have detailed above.

Maybe this just says that some of us are doing this without the guidelines as it’s part of the inherit process. Now that’s not for everyone. I guess it’s a case of experience for different fields coming into play, eh.

I’d post the name of the books and their authors but the course ware is currently on the other side of the ocean from me.