A Step-by-Step Guide to Qualitative Data Coding

Philip Adu

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781351044493
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Research & Methodology in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

A Step-by-Step Guide to Qualitative Data Coding is a comprehensive qualitative data analysis guide. It is designed to help readers to systematically analyze qualitative data in a transparent and consistent manner, thus promoting the credibility of their findings.

The book examines the art of coding data, categorizing codes, and synthesizing categories and themes. Using real data for demonstrations, it provides step-by-step instructions and illustrations for analyzing qualitative data. Some of the demonstrations include conducting manual coding using Microsoft Word and how to use qualitative data analysis software such as Dedoose, NVivo and QDA Miner Lite to analyze data. It also contains creative ways of presenting qualitative findings and provides practical examples.

After reading this book, readers will be able to:

• Analyze qualitative data and present their findings
• Select an appropriate qualitative analysis tool
• Decide on the right qualitative coding and categorization strategies for their analysis
• Develop relationships among categories/themes
• Choose a suitable format for the presentation of the findings

It is a great resource for qualitative research instructors and undergraduate and graduate students who want to gain skills in analyzing qualitative data or who plan to conduct a qualitative study. It is also useful for researchers and practitioners in the social and health sciences fields.

1

Introduction to qualitative data analysis

OBJECTIVES

Readers will be able to:

1. Understand how qualitative research and methods emerged
2. Recognize different types of paradigms and their assumptions
3. Determine which of the paradigms best fits their beliefs and research approach

EMERGENCE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AS AN ACCEPTABLE RESEARCH INQUIRY

The acceptance or popularity of qualitative methods as an alternative tool for research inquiry wasn’t linear. However, Kuhn’s (1996) assertion regarding how a paradigm (i.e. set of beliefs and procedures held by a particular discipline or research community) is maintained, adjusted and rejected could help us to better understand how qualitative methods became widely used in the health and social sciences. According to Kuhn (1996), paradigms are continuously being challenged or tested by new ideas, findings and theories. Crisis occurs when a discipline is unable to resolve inconsistencies in its paradigm. An unresolved crisis in the paradigm could lead to its abandonment – giving way to the formation of a new paradigm. Sometimes, a crisis is resolved by adjusting the existing paradigm.

Positivism was a dominant paradigm during the 19th century (Bentz & Shapiro, 2001). Positivists believed that there is a single ‘Truth’ and that there can be a universal knowledge that transcends time and context (Patton, 2015). They mainly use quantitative methods to conduct research inquiry. To them, qualitative methods lack the strength to attain the ‘Truth’ and they do not require the rigor and objectivity associated with obtaining generalizable findings. As social sciences began to grow, researchers in this discipline started critiquing positivism – revealing inconsistencies and questioning their ontological (about reality), epistemological (about knowledge), axiological (about value) and methodological (about the research process) assumptions associated with positivism (Patton, 2015).

The postpositivism paradigm emerged out of the positivism crisis to address most of the criticisms leveled against the positivists (Patton, 2015). The postpositivists argue that there are multiple truths, which could be investigated utilizing “multiple methods, both quantitative and qualitative [methods]” (Patton, 2015, p. 105). These truths (in the form of hypotheses and theories) can be accepted, rejected or refined based on new discoveries. In addition, they can change based on time and context – debunking positivists’ assertion of a time-free and context-free ‘Truth’ or knowledge. Postpositivists mainly use quantitative methods to conduct research but sometimes utilize qualitative approaches to play supporting roles in their studies.

The emergence of the worldview of postpositivism in response to the critics of positivism couldn’t stop the rise of a naturalistic/interpretive paradigm with qualitative approaches as the main alternative methods of inquiry. Briefly, researchers and scholars with a naturalistic or an interpretive worldview are of the view that:

• There are multiple ways of looking at or interpreting an issue (i.e. multiple realities)
• Individuals’ characteristics influence how they see the world or interpret their experience
• All truth or knowledge is linked to a context (i.e. context-bound knowledge)

Under this paradigm, the main worldviews are constructivist, social constructivist and transformative positions. There is not much difference among these worldviews in terms of their philosophical assumptions in relation to ontology (i.e. there is more than one reality), epistemology (i.e. there is a researcher–phenomenon of study link), axiology (i.e. research results are based on the context) and methodology (i.e. conducting an inquiry using qualitative methods) (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Yilmaz, 2013). However, constructivists contend that we individually construct ideas (i.e. knowledge or reality), making sense of our environment as we interact with people, places, objects and situations. Taking a step further, social constructivists believe that, yes, we build knowledge through interactions but it is socially constructed. As we interact with our society, receiving and sharing ideas, we end up building knowledge which is shared by all members (including us) of the society. I must emphasize that the social construction of knowledge is a continuous process. Members constantly create, refine and maintain ideas.

Researchers and practitioners who hold the transformative worldview believe that socially constructed knowledge could be oppressive, pushing people with less power to a disadvantaged position (Mertens, 2003). As you may know, there are socially constructed rules and norms that could be discriminatory and disempowering. These norms and regulations prevent certain groups of people from meeting their goals in life. In response, researchers with a transformative worldview are concerned about helping people to remove obstacles in their lives and working with them to come up with solutions to address their oppressive situation. Their research is not only about contributing to the knowledge in their discipline but about improving participants’ conditions.

There are paradigms that have some similarities with the transformative worldview. They include: critical, feminism, queer and disability theories (Creswell & Poth, 2018). These theories have one thing in common, which is pointing out injustice, unfairness and discrimination, and advocating for empowerment and equality. Creswell and Poth (2018) discuss these theories in detail in their book, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches.

Pragmatism is another paradigm which has recently gained popularity, especially among researchers who advocate for the use of the mixed methods approach. Pragmatists focus on evaluating existing models, theories, paradigms and research methods, and selecting appropriate ones for their inquiry. They are not associated with any particular paradigm, but are concerned with using any suitable research tool that could aid in solving their research problem, explaining a phenomenon of study or addressing a research question (Hanson, Creswell, Plano Clark, Petska, & Creswell, 2005). In others words, if a paradigm works, they adopt and use it to achieve their goal (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

WHAT IS YOUR PARADIGM?

Which one of the paradigms best suits your beliefs about knowledge in terms of how it should be researched? Do you believe that there is one ultimate ‘Truth’ out there? Do you believe there are multiple realities? You could think about these and similar questions to help you choose a paradigm which is closely related to your philosophical beliefs. You may see yourself being a part of one or more of the worldviews, or you are not sure where you belong. Irrespective of the paradigm you identify with, you should be aware of their philosophical assumptions (explained above), strengths (expressed by their gatekeepers), weaknesses (raised by their critics) and concerns (brought forward by their skeptics).

Similar to Kuhn’s (1996) submission about the emergence and extinction of paradigms, I see four main roles that researchers and scholars could play to sustain or reject existing paradigms, or create new ones. Within a paradigm, there are gatekeepers and skeptics (see Figure 1.1). Gatekeepers see themselves as guardians of the elements of the paradigm – ready to explain their worldview, respond to critics, and initiate new members. However, skeptics within the paradigm don’t take things for granted; they question aspects of the paradigm as they determine its consistency compared to evidence, findings and/or new ideas. If they are not satisfied (for example, due to the inability of the paradigm/gatekeepers to address their questions), they reject the paradigm and join an existing worldview or create a new one.

Conversely, there are two main groups of scholars (outside a paradigm) whose role is to critically examine the worldview: critics and explorers. The role of the critics is to point out the weaknesses of the paradigm and sometimes make recommendations. However, the explorers’ focus is to identify and utilize applicable and result-oriented aspects of a paradigm to address a research problem. Their role is quite similar to that of the pragmatists (see Creswell & Poth, 2018). All of these roles are essential to the advancement of knowledge.

Figure 1.1. Four roles within a paradigm

Whether you are a part of an existing paradigm or not, there is a role you could play to help advance knowledge in your field. You could be:

• A paradigm gatekeeper – fortifying your paradigm boundaries with a strong scholarly response to issues raised by critics (Phillips, 1979)
• A paradigm skeptic – questioning issues in the paradigm you are affiliated with (Patton, 2015)
• A paradigm critic – bringing to light the weakness of a paradigm, and explaining new ideas or research findings (Kuhn, 1996)
• A paradigm explorer – examining, adopting and applying paradigms to carry out your research (Creswell & Poth, 2018)

Irrespective of our role in paradigm development and maintenance, when conducting a study we need to be aware of the characteristics of the research methods we use and their respective philosophical assumptions. Every paradigm is regulated by its philosophical assumptions, which in turn inform the research methods being used. In other words, every worldview held by a research community or discipline (i.e. paradigm) has conditions that should be met or rules which need to be followed (i.e. philosophical assumptions) when using recommended research tools/methods to conduct research.

Whenever we select a methodology for your study, we need to learn more about its philosophical assumptions so as to conduct a study that is credible. For instance, if you choose and use a quasi-experimental design as your quantitative research method for your study, the decisions and actions you take (in relation to data collection and analysis, and presentation and interpretation of results) should reflect the philosophical assumptions associated with positivist or postpositivist worldviews. This includes but is not limited to the following:

• The research environment should be free from the ‘researcher-participant influence’ and/or ‘researcher–phenomenon of study influence’. The study should be free from the researcher’s biases.
• The study should be consistent with a deductive reasoning process where data is collected to test hypotheses.
• There should be testable hypotheses. The hypotheses should contain measurable variables.
• Findings could be generalizable if participants were selected using a probability sampling technique.
• There is a possibility of establishing a cause-and-effect relationship if experimental-related procedures are followed.

ASSUMPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERPRETATIVE PARADIGMS

Let’s limit our discussion to the interpretative paradigms (such as constructivism, social constructivism, and transformative worldviews) since this book is about conducting qualitative analysis. All of these paradigms mainly use qualitative methods to explore a research phenomenon, examine a complex experience, and highlight unnoticed and sensitive issues – getting to the depth of an experience, a situation or a process. Whenever we choose a qualitative method as our research approach for a study, it is implied that we accept the following assumptions:

• Multiple realities: We and potential participants for our study have history (which includes our background, past experiences, beliefs and education) and a present situation. Since past and present experiences differ from one person to another, the way we see the world and interpret our experiences is different. So, in using a qualitative method, it is expected that participants may provide varied descriptions about their experiences and the meaning they make out of them. This supports the assumption that there are multiple interpretations of the world, which are influenced by our history and present situation (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
• Reciprocal influence among researcher, participants and phenomenon of study: Conducting a qualitative study is...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Brief contents
• Detailed contents
• Exhibits
• Figures
• Tables
• Boxes
• Acknowledgment
• 1 Introduction to qualitative data analysis
• 2 Review of qualitative approaches and their data analysis methods
• 3 Understanding the art of coding qualitative data
• 4 Preparing data to code
• 5 Reflecting on, acknowledging and bracketing your perspectives and preconceptions
• 6 Documenting personal reflections and the analytical process
• 7 Manually assigning codes to data
• 8 Developing categories and themes
• 9 Connecting themes, and developing tables and diagrams
• 10 Using QDA Miner Lite to analyze qualitative data
• 11 Using NVivo 12 to analyze qualitative data
• 12 Using Dedoose to analyze qualitative data
• 13 Presenting qualitative findings
• 14 Ensuring the credibility of the analysis process and findings
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Index