I would appreciate some advice with regards to the above question.
The condensed version is that I am working with a co-researcher in undertaking a thematic analysis on focus groups and 1 - 1 interviews. Because of the nature of some of the focus groups, my co-researcher wishes to bring someone in at the coding discussion process (so we are both coding the transcripts independently, and then coming together to discuss this - it is at this stage and not prior that they want to bring the person in). They want to bring them in, as they feel they have experience with the sample group, and so would be able to say whether the themes reflect accurately with that persons perception of that particular group of individuals. This would occur only for one type of sample group for the process, not the rest, e.g. focus groups conducted on fish, but the two that are held on seahorses, we bring in a seahorse to see if the themes reflect the seahorse cohort. (Sorry, looking at a fish tank at the moment!).
As they would not have been a part of the coding process, would this be "ok" to do?
Dear Danica, I think it's possible to do many things with regards to qualitative data analysis – our methods must sometimes be flexible. I guess your colleague is seeking some form of triangulation by introducing someone outside the research team to discuss the "relevance" of your coding. I don't think this is likely to do any harm, but on the other hand it might not be as useful as your colleague believes. The coding clearly emerges from the two of you having deeply engaged with the data, and this is not the case for the external participant. The only way to find out is by giving it a go. But I do wonder about your hesitation – and think that you should take it seriously. Have a think about why you're hesitating to introduce a third participant in the discussion – perhaps you already know the answer to your own question. I'm fascinated by the fishes and the seahorses! Best, Birgitta
Dear Danica, I think it's possible to do many things with regards to qualitative data analysis – our methods must sometimes be flexible. I guess your colleague is seeking some form of triangulation by introducing someone outside the research team to discuss the "relevance" of your coding. I don't think this is likely to do any harm, but on the other hand it might not be as useful as your colleague believes. The coding clearly emerges from the two of you having deeply engaged with the data, and this is not the case for the external participant. The only way to find out is by giving it a go. But I do wonder about your hesitation – and think that you should take it seriously. Have a think about why you're hesitating to introduce a third participant in the discussion – perhaps you already know the answer to your own question. I'm fascinated by the fishes and the seahorses! Best, Birgitta
You can do anything you see fit to serve answering your research question, within the boundaries and guidelines of you paradigmatic stance (e.g., positivists are less flexible). That said, be sure to articulate well the rationale for your choices, and if grounded in a "traditional" method (e.g., thematic analysis) make sure to explain the reason for deviations. Finally, make sure that you are congruent with your paradigmatic stance (e.g., triangulation is not a constructivist's method of validation).
Good luck.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Coding