Hi Darshna

I was in the same predicament when I started my PhD. Which is why I went for Grounded Theory analysis, from the Strauss & Corbin, Corbin and Strauss school of GT.

What I liked about their perspective is that there are logical and rigorous steps in the coding processes. This methodology is not for everyone, but it worked for me. Incidentally, there is no easy or simple way of doing this, which ever methodology you decide to follow. My recent publication on Gender perceptions and their impact when referring obese patients for exercise, shows my interpretation and application of this methodology.

Good luck with what ever  methodology you choose, and prepare yourself for many hours of interpretation and analysis, which is part of understanding the data that you collect.

Hi Darshna,

I had the same problem...welcome to qualitative research! :-)

Tracing back as far as I could in relation to this, I came across Lofland (1971: 14-15) who noted six classes on which you could devise a coding scheme for social phenomena:

• Acts
• Activities
• Meanings
• Participation
• Relationships
• Settings

I hope this helps!

All the best,

Scott

Reference

Lofland, J. (1971). Analysing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Welcome to qualitative research as said above - in reflecting on the data you have to make this call - this is the joy of qualitative research.

I agree with others that you have touched on a fundamental issue, which is the essentially subjective nature of qualitative data analysis. At the beginning, this can seem quite intimidating, but as you become more familiar in working with your data, the problems you confront will be more practical as you decide on the best watch to capture your data.

In particular, I tell my students that the typical article reports from 3-5 themes. So if you know from the beginning that this is what your Results section will contain, then that makes it easier to consolidate smaller sets of codes into more powerful themes.

As you probably already know, the software will not do this for you, but it will make it easier for you to "manage" the process. 

Finally with regard to the Strauss and Corbin / Corbin and Strauss version of GT, I would agree that first two editions (where Strauss played a major role) did have useful advice about the steps in the coding process. This is less the case with the later two editions (by Corbin alone), to the point where her discussion of Coding in the 4th edition is unlike anything I have seen in any other treatment of Grounded Theory.

Darshna, you might like to check out Grounded Theory as a possibility; in which case I'd recommend either Cathy Urquhart's Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research (2013) or Kathy Charmaz's Constructing Grounded Theory (2014); you may find these easier (lighter reads) than Corbin and Strauss's 4th. ed. Basic of Qualitative Research (2015) [by Juliet Corbin alone, as David refers to---Anselm Strauss died almost 20 years ago, just before publication of the 2nd. ed.]; what I find with this latter text is that for me, it's long-winded------but, like earlier editions, still extremely helpful, if you can 'stay the course'.

Thank you everyone for your wonderfull answers and suggestions! 

Study your text, section by section; what is happening here? Put a name to this action; do this for the next section; these are your data codes.

Yes, and don't force something into your analysis that isn't really there; guard against this by close study of your data and asking 'what's happening here?'. This procedure give you your data codes----codes your data.

The categories in your literature review could also be a reference point. 

I agree with all these answers and also keeping in mind that there is likely to be around 5 overarching themes. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of putting in the work to understand your data and taking the time to do this. It should not be a hurried process and if you read articles on qualitative research you will see how researchers take time to understand the data and engage in an iterative process where they are constantly moving between theory and the analytical process. Don't force categories as others have said and take your time to think about the data that emerges that does not fit the general pattern - these are worth reporting on and may lead you to some original insights.

Such great advice on this thread. I'd also add that it's important to spend time reflecting and getting your insights down in memos. It can be easy to get caught up in a coding frenzy - so you need to write continuously and even make things like mind maps and diagrams to consolidate and push your thinking forward. 

Hi Kathleen,

absolutely.

Yes good idea, writing as you go is important. And start with your research questions and literature.