Journal of Qualitative Inquiry
2016, 2 2, pp.161~191
,
. (matrix)
(data display) .

,
.
, SWOT , ,
. ,
.
,
.

162 2 2

. (2012) ‘Bricoleur’ , , ,

. (2004) ‘’ , ,
. (2004) ‘
’
.


(, 2014; , 2016; , , 2014).

. (2012) , , ,
,
. , (2014)
‘ / → → 1 →
2 → 3 → ’ 6 ,
‘ ’ .

(Charmaz, 2011; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), (Crotty, 1996; Moustakas,
1994; Smith et al., 2009; van Manen, 1990; Wertz, 2011), (Weber, 1985)

( , 2016).
, (2000)
.
(2015) (domain analysis) ,
, (taxonomy), ,
(freelisting) , Triad . (2015)
| (Matrix Analysis) 163
van Kaam(1966), Giorgi(1971), van Manen(1990)
.
(2015) Dollard(1935), Mandelbaum(1973)
6 ,
, , /
, / ,
, / .
2.0
( , 2016). ,

.
,
(matrix analysis)
.
(data display)
, , , , , , ,
(Miles & Huberman, 1994).
,
. ,
(Miles,
Huberman, & Saldana, 1994).
, ,
.

. ,
.
, , ,
, ,
.
164 2 2
.
, ,
.
(Agnes, 2000).

(Miles & Huberman, 1994).
‘’ .

. Miles & Huberman(1994)
.
[ 1] ··
, , /
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). (,
, ) .

| (Matrix Analysis) 165
[ 2] ,
, , /
.

. , ,
.
, ,

.
.
2.
1990
,
. , 1960



166 2 2
(ground
theory) .
Glaser Strauss ,
(Schatzman,
1991). ,
,
.
(matrix) .
,
(Haddon, 1970) .
‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’ 3
.

Miles Huberman 1994 ‘
(Qualitative data analysis)’ . Miles Huberman
,
.
, , ,
, .
440 , 85 , 259 ,
2,713 .

, (Altschuld & Witkin,
2000; Marsh, 1990; Sandelowski, 2000). Altschuld & Witkin(2000) ,
, , ,
Marsh(1990) (process-oriented matrix)
.

| (Matrix Analysis) 167
,
. (Meadows &
Morse, 2001; Straub & Welke, 1998; Yassine, Falkenburg, & Chelst, 1999). Yassine
et al.(1999) Design Structure Matrix (DSM) .
DSM ,
. Straub & Welke(1998) Countermeasure
Matrix Model ,
.
.
1980
, .
(Crandall & Associates, 1983; Dalin et al.,
1992; Huberman, 1981), (Huberman, 1986, 1989,
1993), (Huberman & Gather-Thurler, 1991)
.


(Atkinson & Hammersley, 1983; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lofland & Lofland,
1984; Patton, 1990).
3.

. . ,
.
,
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). ,

. ,
168 2 2
, , ,
. ,

. ,
.

, .
(check list)
,
. ,
,
. , (2014)
‘ / ’, ‘’
,
. ,
(Averill, 2002).
(Cleveland, 1985). ,

.
. , ,
, (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
,
, , .

.
| (Matrix Analysis) 169
.
3 .
,
.
‘matrix analysis’ ‘qualitative
research matrix analysis’, ‘ ’ ,

30, 10 .

.
,
,

.
1. (haddon matrix)
Haddon, Jr. 3 (row) 4 (column)
. 3 (phase), 4
(factor) . Matrix
· , · , ·
, Haddon → →
(, 2010).
,
· , ,
(Schmukler, 2009).
,
170 2 2
,
. .
< 1> ( )



112

,
(host), (agent), (physical environment), ·
(social·socioeconomic environment) .
,

. ,
, ·
, · , .
Deljavan R. et. al. (2012)
, . ,
/ ( , ,
), / , / , ( ,
, , ) .
| (Matrix Analysis) 171
,
.

. ,
.
. //
, (critical period)
. ,
.
, , , ·
.
, , ,
,
.
2. SWOT (SWOT matrix)
SWOT 1971 Ken Andrews ,
.
. ,
, , SWOT .
SWOT (internal origin)
(eExternal origin), (helpful) , (harmful)
, (strength), (weakness),
(opportunity), (threat) .
SWOT .
172 2 2
< 2> SWOT (S )
(Helpful) (Harmful)

(Internal origin)

(External origin)
•
, SWOT S

. () ‘
’, ‘ ’ ,
() ‘ ’ .
, () ‘ ’,
() ‘ ’ .
Srivastava et al.(2005) Lucknow
SWOT
. SWOT
, , , . Lucknow
.
(2013)
SWOT .
SWOT ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
.
, ,
/, /
. SWOT ,
| (Matrix Analysis) 173
, , ,
.
SWOT
,
. SWOT
, SWOT
,

.
,
, .
3. (time-centered matrix)
,
, ,
(Miles & Huberman, 1994).
.
, ,

(, 2015).

.
.
.
.
174 2 2
< 3> : (, 2015, p. 12)
10 20 30 40 50

,
.
(, 10, 20 ) .
, ,
, / .
,
.


. ,

(Miles & Huberman, 1994).
, , .
| (Matrix Analysis) 175
4. (Role-centered Matrix)
‘ ’
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). ·
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
< 4>
.
,
, .
,
. ‘’ , ‘’
‘’ .
, .

.
< 5> .
176 2 2
< 4> 1 (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 189)

(,
)

| (Matrix Analysis) 177
< 5> 2(Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 191 )

4
( ) , ,
1~2
, ,
< 5> ,
, , .
, /
,
.
.
, , ,
.

. 2016 5
.

. 3
, 3 7~8
.
2, 40 .
,
178 2 2
.
.
.
1.
.
,
(prototype).
.
,
.
. , , ,
.
.
, SWOT , ,
.
. ,
.

(Miles & Huberman, 1994).

,
. ,
. 7~8

. , ,

.
| (Matrix Analysis) 179
,
.

. ,
.
.
.
< 6> ( )


2.
.
. ,
, , , ,
.
/, , / .
, , , , ,
.
< 7>
.
( , ) (reduction)
.
.
( , )
: ? .
?
: .
: .
.
.
: , .
: ?
: . .
. ( 5)
.
: ?
: .
?
: 3, 5
. .
: . .
: . .
•
•
•



< 6> .
< 8> .
< 8> ( )

•
•
,
| (Matrix Analysis) 181
.
, .
3.
(analytic text) .
. Glaser & Strauss(1967)
(grounded theory)
. ,

.
, .
,
. ,
.
< 8>
.
“
.
, ,

.
, .
. ,
. , .

.

, .

182 2 2
,
. , .
,
.
,
. , .
, , ,
.
, ,

.”
4.
.
.
, ,
, /
. .




| (Matrix Analysis) 183
[ 3] ,
/ .
.
, .
, < 8>

. , ,
. , ‘
’ ‘ ’
.
,
.
,
. ,
//
, .
//
.
// .

.
.
184 2 2
< 9> ()












•
•
| (Matrix Analysis) 185





, ,
.
.
.
,
, .
. ,
. , ,
, ,
,
. Glaser(1978) ‘ → →
→ ’ . ‘ ’
186 2 2
.
, , .
,
. Glaser ‘’
.
, .
Glaser(1978)
, .
, .
,
.
, ,
.

.

. ,
,

.
,
.
,
.
.
| (Matrix Analysis) 187

(2015). . , 1(2), 99-122.
(2014). . , 147,
377-405.
, , (2015). .
, 54(4), 621-638.
.
, , , , , , , , ,
(2004). . : .
.
(2000). . , 18, 359-374.
, (2014). :
. , 12(1), 159-184.
(2015). . 2015
.
, , (2016). . , 2(1), 127-
155.
(2010) Mass Gathering Haddon Matrix
. , 10(2), 167-203.
Agnes, M. (2000). Webster’s new world college dictionary. Foster City, CA: IDG Books
Worldwide.
Altschuld, J. W., & Witkin, B. R. (2000). From needs assessment to action:
Transforming needs into solution strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice.
188 2 2
London: Routledge.
Averill, J. B. (2002). Matrix analysis as complementary analytic strategy in
qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 855-866.
Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cleveland, W. S. (1985). The elements of graphing data. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Crandall, D. P., Loucks-Horsley, S., Bauchner, J. E., Schmidt, W. B., Eiseman, J.
W., Cox, P. L., Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Taylor, B. L., Goldberg,
J. A., Shive, G., Thompson, C. L., & Taylor, J. A. (1983). People, policies
and practice: Examining the chain of school improvement. Maynard, MA: The
Network, Inc.
Crotty, M. (1996). Phenomenology and nursing research. (, ,
2001). . : .
Dalin, P., Ayono, T., Biazen, A., & Dibaba, B. (1992). How schools improve:
International report. Oslo, Norway: IMTEC.
Deljavan, R., Sadeghi-Bazargani, H., Fouladi, N., Arshi, S., & Mohammadi, R.
(2012). Application of Haddon’s matrix in qualitative research methodology:
An experience in burns epidemiology. International Journal of General
Medicine, 5, 621-627.
Dollard, J. (1935). Criteria for the life history: With analyses of six notable documents.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Giorgi, A., Fischer, W. F., & Eckartsberg, R. V. (1971). Duquesne studies in
phenomenological psychology. Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago,
IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Haddon, W. (1970). On the escape of tigers: An ecologic note. American Journal of
Public Health, 60, 29–34.
Huberman, A. M. (1981). School-university collaboration supporting school
| (Matrix Analysis) 189
improvement. Washington, DC: American University, Knowledge Transfer
Institute.
Huberman, A. M. (1986). Engagements in educational change through out the teaching
career. Geneva, Switzerland: University of Geneva.
Huberman, A. M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College
Record, 91(1), 31-57.
Huberman, A. M. (1993). The lives of teachers. London: Cassell.
Huberman, A. M. & Gather T. M. (1991). De la recherche la pratique. Berne,
Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1984). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative
observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mandelbaum, D. G. (1973). The study of life history: Ghandi. Current
Anthropology, 14, 177-207.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multidehod data:
The construct validation of multidimensional self-concept responses. Journal
of Personality, 58, 661-692.
Meadows, L. M., & Morse, J. M. (2001). Constructing evidence within the
qualitative project. In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.),
The nature of qualitative evidence (pp. 187–200). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles B. M., Huberman A. M., & Saldana J. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. A
methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mostakas. C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
190 2 2
Nursing & Health, 23, 246-255.
Schatzman, L. (1991). Dimensional analysis: Note on an alternative approach to
the grounding of theory in qualitative research. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social
organization and socail process (pp. 303-314). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De
Gruyter.
medicalexecutivepost.com/2015/12/05/haddon-matrix-for-health-place-
injury-prevention/.
Smith, J. A., Flower P., & Larkin. M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological
analysis: Theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Srivastava, P. K., Kulshreshtha, K., Mohanty, C. S., Pushpangadan, P., & Singh,
A. (2005). Stakeholder-based SWOT analysis for successful municipal solid
waste management in Lucknow, India. Waste Management, 25(5), 531-537.
Straub, D. W., & Welke, R. J. (1998). Coping with systems risk: Security planning
models for management decision-making. MIS Quarterly, 22(4), 441-469.
Strauss. A., & Corbin J. M. (1990) Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons,
and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
van Kaam, A. L. (1966). Existential Foundations of Psychology. Pittsburgh, PA:
Duquesne University Press.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. (, , 1994).
. : .
Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wertz, F. J. (2011). A phenomenological psychological approach to trauma and resilience:
Five ways of doing qualitative analysis. Elmsford, NY: The Guilford Press.
Yassine, A., Falkenburg, D. R., & Chelst, K. (1999). Engineering design management:
An information structure approach. International Journal of production research,
37(13), 2957-2975.
| (Matrix Analysis) 191
ABSTRACT
Sung-Eun Min Jinju National University of Education
This research is designed to define the concept, features, and application
methodologies of Matrix Analysis. A matrix is defined as “a set of numbers or terms
arranged in rows and columns; within which, or within and from which, something
is originated, takes form, or develops”. It is used to identify mutual relationship of
interaction among more than two major dimensions. Data analysis consists of data
reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification. As a matrix is one of the
data display methods to facilitate data analysis with circular procedures of data collection
and data analysis, it enables researchers to collect proper set of data and also helps
readers understand extensive range of qualitative data more efficiently. This research
also introduced the representative forms of matrix, including Haddon Matrix, SWOT
Matrix, time-centered matrix, and theme-centered matrix, reviewing features of each
method. The discussion also covered how matrix can be utilized in qualitative studies,
by introducing the procedures of matrix analysis. With these efforts, meaning, potentials
and restrictions of matrix analysis were reviewed, to provide in-depth insights on the
topic that has not been covered much in previous researches.
Keywords: qualitative data analysis, matrix analysis, qualitative research