A lot of research is carried out by one person and as long as you ensure you have a clear plan for data collection and analysis you will be fine - do you have a supervisor?

I did individual for my PhD When I had more time to analyse the data. With subsequent research projects when time was an issue I had teams of 4 people conducting initial analysis, then one person interpreting, with a second researcher, confirming the analysis.

Irrespective of the direction you take the key was justifying rigor in the analytical process. I used the following sections from Sparkes and Smith and Tracey to do that.

Sparkes, A.C., and Smith, B., 2014. Qualitative Research Methods in Sport Exercise and Health.: From process to product. Oxon: Routledge.

Tracey, S. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Enquiry, 16, 837-851

Good advice and the other thing you may do is work with a peer group to discuss in general the processes you are using - doing this reflection as you go through the research enables you discuss emerging themes with others who are doing similar research. You need to maintain confidentiality as you engage in these reflection processes.

Thank you Martyn and Robyn! Appreciated your response.

Good luck for your research.

Even though the majority of qualitative research is probably done by single individuals, I don't think you are going to find any citations on this topic. Instead, I would follow Martyn Queen's advice and concentrate on providing evidence about the steps you have taken to assure a high quality research process.

Hi! On my profile you'll have some articles that might be of interest. 

Article Análisis y estrategias en la aplicación de la evaluación for...

I agree with the points including having supervision for your research.

Hi Yuka. Great to hear from you. Have a look at some of the work of Steve Kates (a former colleague). Cheers David

Thank you so much for all your guidance. All along I have been doing a qualitative research with my colleagues cross checking coding and so on so I had this wrong assumption that I had to do with multiple coders to ensure the objectivity of my qualitative data analysis. But, all your suggestions have greatly clarified what I thought was an appropriate way of going through a detailed process. David, it is wonderful to hear from you! Thank you too for your suggestion. Appreciated it.

I would suggest to find a recognised method of research that fits with your research problem. If you are doing a PhD, then you are learning a method and may be risky to try to innovate without knowledge or the adequate support. There are many methods (and methodologies) that will allow you to do good qualitative research, your supervisors should be able to point out a few suitable alternatives.. 

If you are not getting the right support from your supervisors, my advice is to get a good book on qualitative research methods as the basic starting point, so you see what is available to you. At the same time you need to think about (a) your research problem (what you are trying to investigate? why it is important? what are the challenges and risks to your study? What do you need to get and how?) (b) the type of access to data you can get (who will be your informants? What ethical considerations should apply? How you can get the best information? How you are going to try to get to the "truth" rather than the standard BS accounts about it? and so on...) and (c) the skills you need to do he job well (What are them? Do you have them? If not, how you can get it? Do you sufficiently understand the nature of the work? How can you maximise opportunities to obtain the best data you can and to do the best analysis you can?) 

Finally, there are many ways to do qualitative research, selecting the right approach/method/methodology for your study is critical and takes effort, as all good work does.  Best wishes.

I recommend you the book: In the Field:An Introduction to Field Research. Contributors: Robert G.Burgess - Author. Publisher: Routledge. Place of publication: London. Publication year: 1995. 

Your approach to analysis is both deductive and inductive because it is based on both theory and data. Isn't it? If that is the case you can code initially alone based on the theory but you still need an expert to do few coding and then you compare and agree on the codes. Establishing rigor is important in qualitative research. In my PhD work which I am still doing, I did the coding first with an expert to agree on initial codes then proceeded coding the rest of the scripts alone.

2009 A single-case study on the process and outcome of psychoanalysis Scand. Psychoanal. Rev.3139-

                      3147

I don't think any justification is needed in the case of qualitative data analysis as far as your research area is a concern. There are scopes for you to look into areas where you would like to in order to reach the answer to the question. I think the justification is more desired in quantitative research analysis because it deals with numerical data and calls for justification in preferred areas. 

Good Luck! 

Here are a few articles/references.

2009 A single-case study on the process and outcome of psychoanalysis Scand. Psychoanal. Rev.3139-3147

A single-case study on the process and outcome of psychoanalysis

Imre Szecsödy &

Swedish Psychoanalytic Society

 & Jan Stoker

Netherlands Psychoanalytic Institute

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Fulvia Ronchi PhD from London (RF- scoring); Wendela Lund PhD from Stockholm (AAI coding); Lector Eva Sundin PhD from Umeå (questionnaires); and Jolien Zevalkink PhD from Amsterdam (scientific support).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Imre Szecsödy MD, PhD, Brahegatan 30, S11437 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.nr; +46-8-6621567 Fax.nr: +46-8-6621161 E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

The present study investigates one  person’s psychoanalysis over a period of five years during treatment and two and five years later at follow-up. Both patient and analyst were interviewed yearly and filled out questionnaires every year during the treatment. According to the interviews , the analysand found “a space for himself in himself” in which he could contain “sorrow, hopefulness, joy, remorse, anger and even desperation”. The psychoanalytic relationship was stabil and consistent, and the main complaints decreased significantly over time. RF scores raised from a sum-score of 5 before the beginning of treatment to 6/7 at the end..  Self-rating scales showed positive changes already in the first year of treatment and these gains were maintained throughout treatment and also at the two-year and five years follow-up. Mental attachment representation before the treatment and at termination did show a shift from an insecure attachment representation to a more secure one. Further discussion and experiences are necessary to deepen our understanding of how to interpret the influence and impact of research on the treatment, on the analyst, the validity of  “informed consent of the analysand “ as well to the specificity of the treatment and the instrument used to study it. 

Can I accually conduct qualitative single case study base on email interview? What data analysis will you recomended?

Hi Vera

You might find some useful info on case studies in Cresswell (2013). Qualitative Inquiry in Research Design. Also my PhD supervisor was an expert in case studies. Check out his work (Andrew Parker) now working at Cambridge University I believe.