My first option was to use a figure to be able to represent through the space occupied by each category the frequency of interviewees (or the categorizations) related to that content. From a peer review, I am considering changing this figure to a table with three columns indicating:
1) category name
2) frequency of coded interviewees
3) quotes from interviews
I notice some variability in the literature on what is the best way to make graphical representations of results in qualitative studies.
I'd add
- category definition
- frequency of coded utterances (or other relevant unit of analysis, interviewee might to be too broad)
Was the outcome of your review a revise and resubmit, and if so, issues did the reviewers raise?
The reviewer's suggestion is to change the figure (which, due to the space occupied, gives the idea of the frequency of the codes) for a table where the frequencies are put in numerical form. I am currently considering introducing source-frequency and code-frequency at the same time, but I don't know if there is any way that is recognized as "standard" in the scientific literature.
Code frequency and source frequency are very different. You are using a frequentist approach? There are pluses and minuses for that. Still, ignoring source frequency could make it appear a code is the most popular, while in reality a small part of the sample predominates.
Hence, decide your aim. I think you will generally find source frequency is what readers want. A fictional example bears this out. A sample of 30 has code x identified 23 times and code y appeared 17 times. Yet, code x was in 8 sources and code y was in 17. I call it rootedness--the place where the code originated needs monitored.
thank you for your answer. I think the same of you, but I really note that code-frequency is most popularly provided in literature I consulted, and many times without a monitoring the participant frequency coded. That is why I am loocking for a referenced standard.
Aha. Thanks for the clarification. I have an article forthcoming on exactly this topic. You need to find articles about representation in qualitative studies. Guba, Denzin, Lincoln, and Onwuegbuzie have all written about representation and legitimation. David L Morgan article "Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: a guide to paths not taken. Qualitative health research, 3(1), 112-121." could also be a source.