Hand coding or using a program such as NVivo or MAXQDA . There are other qual programs but I would not call any of them "easy."

If you already have a set of "themes" from your earlier work, then you might be able to set up a deductive content analysis codebook. That would be easier than creating new codes, using an inductive approach, from your second set of interviews.

Hi Schmetz. Your question is about 'methods' but it's unclear if you mean a program (which Laverne A. Davis answered) or an actual method/framework. I like David L Morgan 's suggestion. I would also throw stance analysis, in the model of John Du Bois into that mix that might be applicable to your second run. You may be able to find connections between the objects and subjects setup by the surveys you do that will fit neatly into Du Bois' triangle. Otherwise, sticking with Goffman, or using a grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin) to reiteratively discover themes and make connections between them.

I dont think there is ever an 'easy' approach. Qualitative analysis involves deep thinking and reflection which informs your interpretation thereby building your analysis and arriving to conclusions. Software such as Nvivo can help you in your analysis and theme formulation. i would opt for the thematic approach in line with what your research questions are.

The most basic - if that is what you mean by "easy" - is to use the Find facility in Word to search for specific words or phrases. You can then cut and paste to collect material under headings or themes. Don't forget to identify the source of each item so that you can readily return to the full text to check the context or to identify informants by an anonymous tag.

NVivo also has various search functions that it claims will automate the coding process. I myself am dubious about this approach.

Your question is ambiguous in that it speaks to methods which would speaks to qualitative methodolog (critical thinking and analysis and the reflective practice). The other is it looks like a software issue for data presentation. A number of them were stated by others already and l concur with them. You need to clarify what it is that you want, want to do and if it has been done already so that your study lends to new knowledge.

Hello, Schmetz. If I understand you correctly, you are looking for a data analysis strategy for your new research to validate themes already found in previous research. Epistemologically this is debatable. For that reason, I agree with David L. Morgan's suggestion. Another point: To choose an analysis strategy, you need to know what paradigm you are under. An data analysis in a qualitative research in health (e.g.: clinical-qualitative study - Turato) uses different theoretical frameworks than a qualitative research in the social sciences (e.g. Grounded Theory - Strauss & Corbin).

Your research questions and research design to some extend guided you to follow up the proper data analysis process.

In your case,through your coding process, code the data to allow for different perspectives. Try to develop categories, count frequency of categories if you have already started it with preset categories (Content Analysis). Further, you can combine categories into themes (Thematic Analysis). Bear in mind, Your combination of preconceive categories and some emergent categories from your data is inductively demandable, since you have semi-structured interview.

It depends on number of interviews you are intending to conduct and the length of its actual transcript