importance of qualitative data analysis in research

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Qualitative Data Analysis: What is it, Methods + Examples

In a world rich with information and narrative, understanding the deeper layers of human experiences requires a unique vision that goes beyond numbers and figures. This is where the power of qualitative data analysis comes to light.

In this blog, we’ll learn about qualitative data analysis, explore its methods, and provide real-life examples showcasing its power in uncovering insights.

What is Qualitative Data Analysis?

Qualitative data analysis is a systematic process of examining non-numerical data to extract meaning, patterns, and insights.

In contrast to quantitative analysis, which focuses on numbers and statistical metrics, the qualitative study focuses on the qualitative aspects of data, such as text, images, audio, and videos. It seeks to understand every aspect of human experiences, perceptions, and behaviors by examining the data’s richness.

Companies frequently conduct this analysis on customer feedback. You can collect qualitative data from reviews, complaints, chat messages, interactions with support centers, customer interviews, case notes, or even social media comments. This kind of data holds the key to understanding customer sentiments and preferences in a way that goes beyond mere numbers.

Importance of Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis plays a crucial role in your research and decision-making process across various disciplines. Let’s explore some key reasons that underline the significance of this analysis:

In-Depth Understanding

It enables you to explore complex and nuanced aspects of a phenomenon, delving into the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. This method provides you with a deeper understanding of human behavior, experiences, and contexts that quantitative approaches might not capture fully.

Contextual Insight

You can use this analysis to give context to numerical data. It will help you understand the circumstances and conditions that influence participants’ thoughts, feelings, and actions. This contextual insight becomes essential for generating comprehensive explanations.

Theory Development

You can generate or refine hypotheses via qualitative data analysis. As you analyze the data attentively, you can form hypotheses, concepts, and frameworks that will drive your future research and contribute to theoretical advances.

Participant Perspectives

When performing qualitative research, you can highlight participant voices and opinions. This approach is especially useful for understanding marginalized or underrepresented people, as it allows them to communicate their experiences and points of view.

Exploratory Research

The analysis is frequently used at the exploratory stage of your project. It assists you in identifying important variables, developing research questions, and designing quantitative studies that will follow.

Types of Qualitative Data

When conducting qualitative research, you can use several qualitative data collection methods , and here you will come across many sorts of qualitative data that can provide you with unique insights into your study topic. These data kinds add new views and angles to your understanding and analysis.

Interviews and Focus Groups

Interviews and focus groups will be among your key methods for gathering qualitative data. Interviews are one-on-one talks in which participants can freely share their thoughts, experiences, and opinions.

Focus groups, on the other hand, are discussions in which members interact with one another, resulting in dynamic exchanges of ideas. Both methods provide rich qualitative data and direct access to participant perspectives.

Observations and Field Notes

Observations and field notes are another useful sort of qualitative data. You can immerse yourself in the research environment through direct observation, carefully documenting behaviors, interactions, and contextual factors.

These observations will be recorded in your field notes, providing a complete picture of the environment and the behaviors you’re researching. This data type is especially important for comprehending behavior in their natural setting.

Textual and Visual Data

Textual and visual data include a wide range of resources that can be qualitatively analyzed. Documents, written narratives, and transcripts from various sources, such as interviews or speeches, are examples of textual data.

Photographs, films, and even artwork provide a visual layer to your research. These forms of data allow you to investigate what is spoken and the underlying emotions, details, and symbols expressed by language or pictures.

When to Choose Qualitative Data Analysis over Quantitative Data Analysis

As you begin your research journey, understanding why the analysis of qualitative data is important will guide your approach to understanding complex events. If you analyze qualitative data, it will provide new insights that complement quantitative methodologies, which will give you a broader understanding of your study topic.

It is critical to know when to use qualitative analysis over quantitative procedures. You can prefer qualitative data analysis when:

• Complexity Reigns: When your research questions involve deep human experiences, motivations, or emotions, qualitative research excels at revealing these complexities.
• Exploration is Key: Qualitative analysis is ideal for exploratory research. It will assist you in understanding a new or poorly understood topic before formulating quantitative hypotheses.
• Context Matters: If you want to understand how context affects behaviors or results, qualitative data analysis provides the depth needed to grasp these relationships.
• Unanticipated Findings: When your study provides surprising new viewpoints or ideas, qualitative analysis helps you to delve deeply into these emerging themes.
• Subjective Interpretation is Vital: When it comes to understanding people’s subjective experiences and interpretations, qualitative data analysis is the way to go.

You can make informed decisions regarding the right approach for your research objectives if you understand the importance of qualitative analysis and recognize the situations where it shines.

Qualitative Data Analysis Methods and Examples

Exploring various qualitative data analysis methods will provide you with a wide collection for making sense of your research findings. Once the data has been collected, you can choose from several analysis methods based on your research objectives and the data type you’ve collected.

There are five main methods for analyzing qualitative data. Each method takes a distinct approach to identifying patterns, themes, and insights within your qualitative data. They are:

Method 1: Content Analysis

Content analysis is a methodical technique for analyzing textual or visual data in a structured manner. In this method, you will categorize qualitative data by splitting it into manageable pieces and assigning the manual coding process to these units.

As you go, you’ll notice ongoing codes and designs that will allow you to conclude the content. This method is very beneficial for detecting common ideas, concepts, or themes in your data without losing the context.

Steps to Do Content Analysis

Follow these steps when conducting content analysis:

• Collect and Immerse: Begin by collecting the necessary textual or visual data. Immerse yourself in this data to fully understand its content, context, and complexities.
• Assign Codes and Categories: Assign codes to relevant data sections that systematically represent major ideas or themes. Arrange comparable codes into groups that cover the major themes.
• Analyze and Interpret: Develop a structured framework from the categories and codes. Then, evaluate the data in the context of your research question, investigate relationships between categories, discover patterns, and draw meaning from these connections.

Benefits & Challenges

There are various advantages to using content analysis:

• Structured Approach: It offers a systematic approach to dealing with large data sets and ensures consistency throughout the research.
• Objective Insights: This method promotes objectivity, which helps to reduce potential biases in your study.
• Pattern Discovery: Content analysis can help uncover hidden trends, themes, and patterns that are not always obvious.
• Versatility: You can apply content analysis to various data formats, including text, internet content, images, etc.

However, keep in mind the challenges that arise:

• Subjectivity: Even with the best attempts, a certain bias may remain in coding and interpretation.
• Complexity: Analyzing huge data sets requires time and great attention to detail.
• Contextual Nuances: Content analysis may not capture all of the contextual richness that qualitative data analysis highlights.

Example of Content Analysis

Suppose you’re conducting market research and looking at customer feedback on a product. As you collect relevant data and analyze feedback, you’ll see repeating codes like “price,” “quality,” “customer service,” and “features.” These codes are organized into categories such as “positive reviews,” “negative reviews,” and “suggestions for improvement.”

According to your findings, themes such as “price” and “customer service” stand out and show that pricing and customer service greatly impact customer satisfaction. This example highlights the power of content analysis for obtaining significant insights from large textual data collections.

Method 2: Thematic Analysis

Thematic analysis is a well-structured procedure for identifying and analyzing recurring themes in your data. As you become more engaged in the data, you’ll generate codes or short labels representing key concepts. These codes are then organized into themes, providing a consistent framework for organizing and comprehending the substance of the data.

The analysis allows you to organize complex narratives and perspectives into meaningful categories, which will allow you to identify connections and patterns that may not be visible at first.

Steps to Do Thematic Analysis

Follow these steps when conducting a thematic analysis:

• Code and Group: Start by thoroughly examining the data and giving initial codes that identify the segments. To create initial themes, combine relevant codes.
• Code and Group: Begin by engaging yourself in the data, assigning first codes to notable segments. To construct basic themes, group comparable codes together.
• Analyze and Report: Analyze the data within each theme to derive relevant insights. Organize the topics into a consistent structure and explain your findings, along with data extracts that represent each theme.

Thematic analysis has various benefits:

• Structured Exploration: It is a method for identifying patterns and themes in complex qualitative data.
• Comprehensive knowledge: Thematic analysis promotes an in-depth understanding of the complications and meanings of the data.
• Application Flexibility: This method can be customized to various research situations and data kinds.

However, challenges may arise, such as:

• Interpretive Nature: Interpreting qualitative data in thematic analysis is vital, and it is critical to manage researcher bias.
• Time-consuming: The study can be time-consuming, especially with large data sets.
• Subjectivity: The selection of codes and topics might be subjective.

Example of Thematic Analysis

Assume you’re conducting a thematic analysis on job satisfaction interviews. Following your immersion in the data, you assign initial codes such as “work-life balance,” “career growth,” and “colleague relationships.” As you organize these codes, you’ll notice themes develop, such as “Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction” and “Impact on Work Engagement.”

Further investigation reveals the tales and experiences included within these themes and provides insights into how various elements influence job satisfaction. This example demonstrates how thematic analysis can reveal meaningful patterns and insights in qualitative data.

Method 3: Narrative Analysis

The narrative analysis involves the narratives that people share. You’ll investigate the histories in your data, looking at how stories are created and the meanings they express. This method is excellent for learning how people make sense of their experiences through narrative.

Steps to Do Narrative Analysis

The following steps are involved in narrative analysis:

• Gather and Analyze: Start by collecting narratives, such as first-person tales, interviews, or written accounts. Analyze the stories, focusing on the plot, feelings, and characters.
• Find Themes: Look for recurring themes or patterns in various narratives. Think about the similarities and differences between these topics and personal experiences.
• Interpret and Extract Insights: Contextualize the narratives within their larger context. Accept the subjective nature of each narrative and analyze the narrator’s voice and style. Extract insights from the tales by diving into the emotions, motivations, and implications communicated by the stories.

There are various advantages to narrative analysis:

• Deep Exploration: It lets you look deeply into people’s personal experiences and perspectives.
• Human-Centered: This method prioritizes the human perspective, allowing individuals to express themselves.

However, difficulties may arise, such as:

• Interpretive Complexity: Analyzing narratives requires dealing with the complexities of meaning and interpretation.
• Time-consuming: Because of the richness and complexities of tales, working with them can be time-consuming.

Example of Narrative Analysis

Assume you’re conducting narrative analysis on refugee interviews. As you read the stories, you’ll notice common themes of toughness, loss, and hope. The narratives provide insight into the obstacles that refugees face, their strengths, and the dreams that guide them.

The analysis can provide a deeper insight into the refugees’ experiences and the broader social context they navigate by examining the narratives’ emotional subtleties and underlying meanings. This example highlights how narrative analysis can reveal important insights into human stories.

Method 4: Grounded Theory Analysis

Grounded theory analysis is an iterative and systematic approach that allows you to create theories directly from data without being limited by pre-existing hypotheses. With an open mind, you collect data and generate early codes and labels that capture essential ideas or concepts within the data.

As you progress, you refine these codes and increasingly connect them, eventually developing a theory based on the data. Grounded theory analysis is a dynamic process for developing new insights and hypotheses based on details in your data.

Steps to Do Grounded Theory Analysis

Grounded theory analysis requires the following steps:

• Initial Coding: First, immerse yourself in the data, producing initial codes that represent major concepts or patterns.
• Categorize and Connect: Using axial coding, organize the initial codes, which establish relationships and connections between topics.
• Build the Theory: Focus on creating a core category that connects the codes and themes. Regularly refine the theory by comparing and integrating new data, ensuring that it evolves organically from the data.

Grounded theory analysis has various benefits:

• Theory Generation: It provides a one-of-a-kind opportunity to generate hypotheses straight from data and promotes new insights.
• In-depth Understanding: The analysis allows you to deeply analyze the data and reveal complex relationships and patterns.
• Flexible Process: This method is customizable and ongoing, which allows you to enhance your research as you collect additional data.

However, challenges might arise with:

• Time and Resources: Because grounded theory analysis is a continuous process, it requires a large commitment of time and resources.
• Theoretical Development: Creating a grounded theory involves a thorough understanding of qualitative data analysis software and theoretical concepts.
• Interpretation of Complexity: Interpreting and incorporating a newly developed theory into existing literature can be intellectually hard.

Example of Grounded Theory Analysis

Assume you’re performing a grounded theory analysis on workplace collaboration interviews. As you open code the data, you will discover notions such as “communication barriers,” “team dynamics,” and “leadership roles.” Axial coding demonstrates links between these notions, emphasizing the significance of efficient communication in developing collaboration.

You create the core “Integrated Communication Strategies” category through selective coding, which unifies new topics.

This theory-driven category serves as the framework for understanding how numerous aspects contribute to effective team collaboration. This example shows how grounded theory analysis allows you to generate a theory directly from the inherent nature of the data.

Method 5: Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis focuses on language and communication. You’ll look at how language produces meaning and how it reflects power relations, identities, and cultural influences. This strategy examines what is said and how it is said; the words, phrasing, and larger context of communication.

The analysis is precious when investigating power dynamics, identities, and cultural influences encoded in language. By evaluating the language used in your data, you can identify underlying assumptions, cultural standards, and how individuals negotiate meaning through communication.

Steps to Do Discourse Analysis

Conducting discourse analysis entails the following steps:

• Select Discourse: For analysis, choose language-based data such as texts, speeches, or media content.
• Analyze Language: Immerse yourself in the conversation, examining language choices, metaphors, and underlying assumptions.
• Discover Patterns: Recognize the dialogue’s reoccurring themes, ideologies, and power dynamics. To fully understand the effects of these patterns, put them in their larger context.

There are various advantages of using discourse analysis:

• Understanding Language: It provides an extensive understanding of how language builds meaning and influences perceptions.
• Uncovering Power Dynamics: The analysis reveals how power dynamics appear via language.
• Cultural Insights: This method identifies cultural norms, beliefs, and ideologies stored in communication.

However, the following challenges may arise:

• Complexity of Interpretation: Language analysis involves navigating multiple levels of nuance and interpretation.
• Subjectivity: Interpretation can be subjective, so controlling researcher bias is important.
• Time-Intensive: Discourse analysis can take a lot of time because careful linguistic study is required in this analysis.

Example of Discourse Analysis

Consider doing discourse analysis on media coverage of a political event. You notice repeating linguistic patterns in news articles that depict the event as a conflict between opposing parties. Through deconstruction, you can expose how this framing supports particular ideologies and power relations.

You can illustrate how language choices influence public perceptions and contribute to building the narrative around the event by analyzing the speech within the broader political and social context. This example shows how discourse analysis can reveal hidden power dynamics and cultural influences on communication.

How to do Qualitative Data Analysis with the QuestionPro Research suite?

QuestionPro is a popular survey and research platform that offers tools for collecting and analyzing qualitative and quantitative data. Follow these general steps for conducting qualitative data analysis using the QuestionPro Research Suite:

• Collect Qualitative Data: Set up your survey to capture qualitative responses. It might involve open-ended questions, text boxes, or comment sections where participants can provide detailed responses.
• Export Qualitative Responses: Export the responses once you’ve collected qualitative data through your survey. QuestionPro typically allows you to export survey data in various formats, such as Excel or CSV.
• Prepare Data for Analysis: Review the exported data and clean it if necessary. Remove irrelevant or duplicate entries to ensure your data is ready for analysis.
• Code and Categorize Responses: Segment and label data, letting new patterns emerge naturally, then develop categories through axial coding to structure the analysis.
• Identify Themes: Analyze the coded responses to identify recurring themes, patterns, and insights. Look for similarities and differences in participants’ responses.
• Generate Reports and Visualizations: Utilize the reporting features of QuestionPro to create visualizations, charts, and graphs that help communicate the themes and findings from your qualitative research.
• Interpret and Draw Conclusions: Interpret the themes and patterns you’ve identified in the qualitative data. Consider how these findings answer your research questions or provide insights into your study topic.
• Integrate with Quantitative Data (if applicable): If you’re also conducting quantitative research using QuestionPro, consider integrating your qualitative findings with quantitative results to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

Qualitative data analysis is vital in uncovering various human experiences, views, and stories. If you’re ready to transform your research journey and apply the power of qualitative analysis, now is the moment to do it. Book a demo with QuestionPro today and begin your journey of exploration.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

You Can’t Please Everyone — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Oct 22, 2024

Edit survey: A new way of survey building and collaboration

Oct 10, 2024

Pulse Surveys vs Annual Employee Surveys: Which to Use

Oct 4, 2024

Employee Perception Role in Organizational Change

Oct 3, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Lean Six Sigma Training Certification

• Facebook Instagram Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
• (877) 497-4462

The Importance of Qualitative Data Analysis in Research: A Comprehensive Guide

August 29th, 2024

Qualitative data analysis, in essence, is the systematic examination of non-numerical information to uncover patterns, themes, and insights.

This process is crucial in various fields, from product development to business process improvement.

Key Highlights

• Defining qualitative data analysis and its importance
• Comparing qualitative and quantitative research methods
• Exploring key approaches: thematic, grounded theory, content analysis
• Understanding the qualitative data analysis process
• Reviewing CAQDAS tools for efficient analysis
• Ensuring rigor through triangulation and member checking
• Addressing challenges and ethical considerations
• Examining future trends in qualitative research

Introduction to Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis is a sophisticated process of examining non-numerical information to extract meaningful insights.

It’s not just about reading through text; it’s about diving deep into the nuances of human experiences, opinions, and behaviors.

This analytical approach is crucial in various fields, from product development to process improvement , and even in understanding complex social phenomena.

Importance of Qualitative Research Methods

The importance of qualitative research methods cannot be overstated. In my work with companies like 3M , Dell , and Intel , I’ve seen how qualitative analysis can uncover insights that numbers alone simply can’t reveal.

These methods allow us to understand the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’, providing context and depth to our understanding of complex issues.

Whether it’s improving a manufacturing process or developing a new product, qualitative research methods offer a rich, nuanced perspective that’s invaluable for informed decision-making.

Comparing Qualitative vs Quantitative Analysis

While both qualitative and quantitative analyses are essential tools in a researcher’s arsenal, they serve different purposes.

Quantitative analysis, which I’ve extensively used in Six Sigma projects, deals with numerical data and statistical methods.

It’s excellent for measuring, ranking, and categorizing phenomena. On the other hand, qualitative analysis focuses on the rich, contextual data that can’t be easily quantified.

It’s about understanding meanings, experiences, and perspectives.

Key Approaches in Qualitative Data Analysis

Explore essential techniques like thematic analysis, grounded theory, content analysis, and discourse analysis.

Understand how each approach offers unique insights into qualitative data interpretation and theory building.

Thematic Analysis Techniques

Thematic analysis is a cornerstone of qualitative data analysis. It involves identifying patterns or themes within qualitative data.

In my workshops on Statistical Thinking and Business Process Charting , I often emphasize the power of thematic analysis in uncovering underlying patterns in complex datasets.

This approach is particularly useful when dealing with interview transcripts or open-ended survey responses.

The key is to immerse yourself in the data, coding it systematically, and then stepping back to see the broader themes emerge.

Grounded Theory Methodology

Grounded theory is another powerful approach in qualitative data analysis. Unlike methods that start with a hypothesis, grounded theory allows theories to emerge from the data itself.

I’ve found this particularly useful in projects where we’re exploring new territory without preconceived notions.

It’s a systematic yet flexible approach that can lead to fresh insights and innovative solutions.

The iterative nature of grounded theory, with its constant comparison of data, aligns well with the continuous improvement philosophy of Six Sigma .

Content Analysis Strategies

Content analysis is a versatile method that can be both qualitative and quantitative.

In my experience working with diverse industries, content analysis has been invaluable in making sense of large volumes of textual data.

Whether it’s analyzing customer feedback or reviewing technical documentation, content analysis provides a structured way to categorize and quantify qualitative information.

The key is to develop a robust coding framework that captures the essence of your research questions.

Discourse Analysis Approaches

Discourse analysis takes a deeper look at language use and communication practices.

It’s not just about what is said, but how it’s said and in what context. In my work on improving communication processes within organizations , discourse analysis has been a powerful tool.

It helps uncover underlying assumptions, power dynamics, and cultural nuances that might otherwise go unnoticed.

This approach is particularly useful when dealing with complex organizational issues or when trying to understand stakeholder perspectives in depth.

The Qualitative Data Analysis Process

Navigate through data collection, coding techniques, theme development, and interpretation. Learn how to transform raw qualitative data into meaningful insights through systematic analysis.

Data collection methods (interviews, focus groups, observation)

The foundation of any good qualitative analysis lies in robust data collection. In my experience, a mix of methods often yields the best results.

In-depth interviews provide individual perspectives, focus groups offer insights into group dynamics, and observation allows us to see behaviors in their natural context.

When working on process improvement projects , I often combine these methods to get a comprehensive view of the situation.

The key is to align your data collection methods with your research questions and the nature of the information you’re seeking.

Qualitative Data Coding Techniques

Coding is the heart of qualitative data analysis. It’s the process of labeling and organizing your qualitative data to identify different themes and the relationships between them.

In my workshops, I emphasize the importance of developing a clear, consistent coding system.

This might involve open coding to identify initial concepts, axial coding to make connections between categories, and selective coding to integrate and refine the theory.

The goal is to transform raw data into meaningful, analyzable units.

Developing Themes and Patterns

Once your data is coded, the next step is to look for overarching themes and patterns. This is where the analytical magic happens.

It’s about stepping back from the details and seeing the bigger picture. In my work with companies like Motorola and HP, I’ve found that visual tools like mind maps or thematic networks can be incredibly helpful in this process.

They allow you to see connections and hierarchies within your data that might not be immediately apparent in text form.

Data Interpretation and Theory Building

The final step in the qualitative data analysis process is interpretation and theory building.

This is where you bring together your themes and patterns to construct a coherent narrative or theory that answers your research questions.

It’s crucial to remain grounded in your data while also being open to new insights. In my experience, the best interpretations often challenge our initial assumptions and lead to innovative solutions.

Tools and Software for Qualitative Analysis

Discover the power of CAQDAS in streamlining qualitative data analysis workflows. Explore popular tools like NVivo, ATLAS.ti, and MAXQDA for efficient data management and analysis .

Overview of CAQDAS (Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software)

Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) has revolutionized the way we approach qualitative analysis.

These tools streamline the coding process, help manage large datasets, and offer sophisticated visualization options.

As someone who’s seen the evolution of these tools over the past two decades, I can attest to their transformative power.

They allow researchers to handle much larger datasets and perform more complex analyses than ever before.

Popular Tools: NVivo, ATLAS.ti, MAXQDA

Among the most popular CAQDAS tools are NVivo, ATLAS.ti, and MAXQDA.

Each has its strengths, and the choice often depends on your specific needs and preferences. NVivo , for instance, offers robust coding capabilities and is excellent for managing multimedia data.

ATLAS.ti is known for its intuitive interface and powerful network view feature. MAXQDA stands out for its mixed methods capabilities, blending qualitative and quantitative approaches seamlessly.

Ensuring Rigor in Qualitative Data Analysis

Implement strategies like data triangulation, member checking, and audit trails to enhance credibility. Understand the importance of reflexivity in maintaining objectivity throughout the research process.

Data triangulation methods

Ensuring rigor in qualitative analysis is crucial for producing trustworthy results.

Data triangulation is a powerful method for enhancing the credibility of your findings. It involves using multiple data sources, methods, or investigators to corroborate your results.

In my Six Sigma projects, I often employ methodological triangulation, combining interviews, observations, and document analysis to get a comprehensive view of a process or problem.

Member Checking for Validity

Member checking is another important technique for ensuring the validity of your qualitative analysis.

This involves taking your findings back to your participants to confirm that they accurately represent their experiences and perspectives.

In my work with various organizations, I’ve found that this not only enhances the credibility of the research but also often leads to new insights as participants reflect on the findings.

Creating an Audit Trail

An audit trail is essential for demonstrating the rigor of your qualitative analysis.

It’s a detailed record of your research process, including your raw data, analysis notes, and the evolution of your coding scheme.

Practicing Reflexivity

Reflexivity is about acknowledging and critically examining your own role in the research process. As researchers, we bring our own biases and assumptions to our work.

Practicing reflexivity involves constantly questioning these assumptions and considering how they might be influencing our analysis.

Challenges and Best Practices in Qualitative Data Analysis

Address common hurdles such as data saturation , researcher bias, and ethical considerations. Learn best practices for conducting rigorous and ethical qualitative research in various contexts.

Dealing with data saturation

One of the challenges in qualitative research is knowing when you’ve reached data saturation – the point at which new data no longer brings new insights.

In my experience, this requires a balance of systematic analysis and intuition. It’s important to continuously review and compare your data as you collect it.

In projects I’ve led, we often use data matrices or summary tables to track emerging themes and identify when we’re no longer seeing new patterns emerge.

Overcoming Researcher Bias

Researcher bias is an ever-present challenge in qualitative analysis. Our own experiences and preconceptions can inadvertently influence how we interpret data.

To overcome this, I advocate for a combination of strategies. Regular peer debriefing sessions , where you discuss your analysis with colleagues, can help uncover blind spots.

Additionally, actively seeking out negative cases or contradictory evidence can help challenge your assumptions and lead to more robust findings.

Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research

Ethical considerations are paramount in qualitative research, given the often personal and sensitive nature of the data.

Protecting participant confidentiality, ensuring informed consent, and being transparent about the research process are all crucial.

In my work across various industries and cultures, I’ve learned the importance of being sensitive to cultural differences and power dynamics.

It’s also vital to consider the potential impact of your research on participants and communities.

Ethical qualitative research is not just about following guidelines, but about constantly reflecting on the implications of your work.

The Future of Qualitative Data Analysis

As we look to the future of qualitative data analysis, several exciting trends are emerging.

The increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in qualitative analysis tools promises to revolutionize how we handle large datasets.

We’re also seeing a growing interest in visual and sensory methods of data collection and analysis, expanding our understanding of qualitative data beyond text.

In conclusion, mastering qualitative data analysis is an ongoing journey. It requires a combination of rigorous methods, creative thinking, and ethical awareness.

As we move forward, the field will undoubtedly continue to evolve, but its fundamental importance in research and decision-making will remain constant.

For those willing to dive deep into the complexities of qualitative data, the rewards in terms of insights and understanding are immense.

SixSigma.us offers both Live Virtual classes as well as Online Self-Paced training. Most option includes access to the same great Master Black Belt instructors that teach our World Class in-person sessions. Sign-up today!

Virtual Classroom Training Programs Self-Paced Online Training Programs

SixSigma.us Accreditation & Affiliations

Monthly Management Tips

• Be the first one to receive the latest updates and information from 6Sigma
• Get curated resources from industry-experts
• Gain an edge with complete guides and other exclusive materials
• Become a part of one of the largest Six Sigma community
• Unlock your path to become a Six Sigma professional

" * " indicates required fields

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

A review of qualitative data analysis practices in health education and health behavior research

Ilana g raskind , msc, rachel c shelton , scd, mph, dawn l comeau , phd, hannah l f cooper , scd, derek m griffith , phd, michelle c kegler , drph, mph.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding author.

Issue date 2019 Feb.

Data analysis is one of the most important, yet least understood stages of the qualitative research process. Through rigorous analysis, data can illuminate the complexity of human behavior, inform interventions, and give voice to people’s lived experiences. While significant progress has been made in advancing the rigor of qualitative analysis, the process often remains nebulous. To better understand how our field conducts and reports qualitative analysis, we reviewed qualitative papers published in Health Education & Behavior between 2000–2015. Two independent reviewers abstracted information in the following categories: data management software, coding approach, analytic approach, indicators of trustworthiness, and reflexivity. Of the forty-eight (n=48) articles identified, the majority (n=31) reported using qualitative software to manage data. Double-coding transcripts was the most common coding method (n=23); however, nearly one-third of articles did not clearly describe the coding approach. Although terminology used to describe the analytic process varied widely, we identified four overarching trajectories common to most articles (n=37). Trajectories differed in their use of inductive and deductive coding approaches, formal coding templates, and rounds or levels of coding. Trajectories culminated in the iterative review of coded data to identify emergent themes. Few papers explicitly discussed trustworthiness or reflexivity. Member checks (n=9), triangulation of methods (n=8), and peer debriefing (n=7) were the most common. Variation in the type and depth of information provided poses challenges to assessing quality and enabling replication. Greater transparency and more intentional application of diverse analytic methods can advance the rigor and impact of qualitative research in our field.

Keywords: health behavior, health promotion, qualitative methods, research design, training health professionals

Introduction

Data analysis is one of the most powerful, yet least understood stages of the qualitative research process. During this phase extensive fieldwork and illustrative data are transformed into substantive and actionable conclusions. In the field of health education and health behavior, rigorous data analysis can elucidate the complexity of human behavior, facilitate the development and implementation of impactful programs and interventions, and give voice to the lived experiences of inequity. While tremendous progress has been made in advancing the rigor of qualitative analysis, persistent misconceptions that such methods can be intuited rather than intentionally applied, coupled with inconsistent and vague reporting, continue to obscure the process ( Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014 ). In an era of public health grounded in evidence-based research and practice, rigorously conducting, documenting, and reporting qualitative analysis is critical for the generation of reliable and actionable knowledge.

There is no single “right” way to engage in qualitative analysis ( Saldana & Omasta, 2018 ). The guiding inquiry framework, research questions, participants, context, and type of data collected should all inform the choice of analytic method ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 ; Saldana & Omasta, 2018 ). While the diversity and flexibility of methods for analysis may put the qualitative researcher in a more innovative position than their quantitative counterparts ( Miles et al., 2014 ), it also makes rigorous application and transparent reporting even more important ( Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011 ). Unlike many forms of quantitative analysis, qualitative analytic methods are far less likely to have standardized, widely agreed upon definitions and procedures ( Miles et al., 2014 ). The phrase thematic analysis , for example, may capture a variety of approaches and methodological tools, limiting the reader’s ability to accurately assess the rigor and credibility of the research. An explicit description of how data were condensed, patterns identified, and interpretations substantiated is likely of much greater use in assessing quality and facilitating replication. Yet, despite increased attention to the systematization of qualitative research ( Levitt et al., 2018 ; O’Brien et al., 2014 ; Tong, Sainsbury, & Craig, 2007 ), many studies remain vague in their reporting of how the researcher moved from “1,000 pages of field notes to the final conclusions” ( Miles et al., 2014 ).

Reflecting on the relevance of qualitative methods to the field of health education and health behavior, and challenges still facing the paradigm, we were interested in understanding how our field conducts and reports qualitative data analysis. In a companion paper ( Kegler et al. 2018 ), we describe our wider review of qualitative articles published in Health Education & Behavior ( HE&B ) from 2000 to 2015, broadly focused on how qualitative inquiry frameworks inform study design and study implementation. Upon conducting our initial review, we discovered that our method for abstracting information related to data analysis—documenting the labels researchers applied to analytic methods—shed little light on the concrete details of their analytic processes. As a result, we conducted a second round of review focused on how analytic approaches and techniques were applied. In particular, we assessed data preparation and management, approaches to data coding, analytic trajectories, methods for assessing credibility and trustworthiness, and approaches to reflexivity. Our objective was to develop a greater understanding of how our field engages in qualitative data analysis, and identify opportunities for strengthening our collective methodological toolbox.

Our methods are described in detail in a companion paper ( Kegler et al. 2018 ). Briefly, eligible articles were published in HE&B between 2000 and 2015 and used qualitative research methods. We excluded mixed methods studies because of differences in underlying paradigms, study design, and methods for analysis and interpretation. We reviewed 48 papers using an abstraction form designed to assess 10 main topics: qualitative inquiry framework, sampling strategy, data collection methods, data management software, coding approach, analytic approach, reporting of results, use of theory, indicators of trustworthiness, and reflexivity. The present paper reports results on data management software, coding approach, analytic approach, indicators of trustworthiness, and reflexivity.

Each article was initially double-coded by a team of six researchers, with one member of each coding pair reviewing the completed abstraction forms and noting discrepancies. This coder fixed discrepancies that could be easily resolved by re-reviewing the full text (e.g. sample size); a third coder reviewed more challenging discrepancies, which were then discussed with a member of the coding pair until consensus was reached. Data were entered into an Access database, and queries were generated to summarize results for each topic. Preliminary results were shared with all co-authors for review, and then discussed as a group.

New topics of interest emerged from the first round of review regarding how analytic approaches and techniques were applied. Two of the authors conducted a second round of review focused on: use of software, how authors discussed achieving coding consensus, use of matrices, analytic references cited, variation in how authors used the terms code and theme , and identification of common analytic trajectories, including how themes were identified, and the process of grouping themes or concepts. To facilitate the second round of review, the analysis section of each article was excerpted into a single document. One reviewer populated a spreadsheet with text from each article pertinent to the aforementioned categories, and summarized the content within each category. These results informed the development of a formal abstraction form. Two reviewers independently completed an abstraction form for each article’s analysis section and met to resolve discrepancies. For three of the categories (use of the terms code and theme; how themes were identified; and the process of grouping themes or concepts), we do not report counts or percentages because the level of detail provided was often insufficient to determine with certainty whether a particular strategy or combination of strategies was used.

Data preparation and management

We examined several dimensions of the data preparation and management process ( Table 1 ). The vast majority of papers (87.5%) used verbatim transcripts as the primary data source. Most others used detailed written summaries of interviews or a combination of transcripts and written summaries (14.6%). We documented whether qualitative software was mentioned and which packages were most commonly used. Fourteen of the articles used Atlas.ti (29.2%) and another seventeen (35.4%) did not report using software. NVivo and its predecessor NUD-IST were somewhat common (20.8%), and Ethnograph was used in two articles. Several other software packages were mentioned in one of the papers (e.g. AnSWR, EthnoNotes). Of those reporting use of a software package, the most common use, in addition to the implied management of data, was to code transcripts (33.3%). Approximately 10.4% described using the software to generate code reports, and 8.3% described using the software to calculate inter-rater reliability. Two articles (4.2%) described using the software to draft memos or data summaries. The remainder did not provide detail on how the software was used (16.7%).

Approaches to data preparation and management in qualitative papers, Health Education & Behavior 2000-2015 (n=48)

Note . Percentages may sum to >100 due to the use of multiple approaches

Data coding and analysis

Coding and consensus.

Double coding of all transcripts was most common by far (47.9%), although a significant proportion of papers did not discuss their approach to coding or the description provided was unclear (31.3%) ( Table 2 ). Among the remaining papers, approaches included a single coder with a second analyst reviewing the codes (8.3%), a single coder only (6.3%), and double coding of a portion of the transcripts with single coding of the rest (6.3%). A related issue is how consensus was achieved among coders. Approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of articles discussed their process for reaching consensus. Most described reaching consensus on definitions of codes or coding of text units through discussions (43.8%), while some mentioned the use of an additional reviewer to resolve discrepancies (8.3%).

Approaches to data coding and analysis in qualitative papers, Health Education & Behavior 2000-2015 (n=48)

Analytic approaches named by authors

As reported in our companion paper, thematic analysis (22.9%), content analysis (20.8%), and grounded theory (16.7%) were most commonly named analytic approaches. Approximately 43.8% named an approach that was not reported by other authors, including inductive analysis, immersion/crystallization, issue focused analysis, and editing qualitative methodology. Approximately 20% of the articles reported using matrices during analysis; most described using them to compare codes or themes across cases or demographic groups (14.6%).

We also examined which references authors cited to support their analytic approach. Although editions varied over time, the most commonly cited references included: Miles and Huberman (1984 , 1994 ); Bernard (1994 , 2002 , 2005 ), Bernard & Ryan (2010) , or Ryan & Bernard (2000 , 2003 ); Patton (1987 , 1990 , 1999 , 2002 ); and Strauss & Corbin (1994 , 1998 ) or Corbin & Strauss (1990) . These authors were cited in over five papers. Other references cited in 3–5 papers included: Lincoln and Guba (1985) or Guba (1978) ; Krueger (1994 , 1998 ) or Krueger & Casey (2000) ; Creswell (1998 , 2003 , 2007 ); and Charmaz (2000 , 2006 ).

Terminology: codes and themes

Given the diversity of definitions for the terms code and theme in the qualitative literature, we were interested in exploring how authors applied and distinguished the terms in their analyses. In over half of the articles, either both terms were not used, or the level of detail provided did not allow for clear categorization of how they were used. In the remainder of articles, we observed two general patterns: 1) the terms being used interchangeably and 2) themes emerging from codes.

Common analytic trajectories

In addition to examining various aspects of the analytic process as outlined above, we attempted to identify common overarching analytic trajectories or pathways. Authors generally used two approaches to indexing or breaking down and labeling the data (i.e., coding). The first approach (Pathways 1 and 2) was to create an initial list of codes based on theory, the literature, research questions, or the interview guide. The second approach (Pathways 3 and 4) was to read through transcripts to generate initial codes or patterns inductively. This approach was often labeled ‘open-coding’ or described as ‘making margin notes’ or ‘memoing’. We were unable to categorize 11 articles (22.9%) into one of the above pathways because the analysis followed a different trajectory (10.4%) or there was not enough detail reported (12.5%).

Those studies that began with initial or ‘start codes’ generally followed two pathways. The first (Pathway 1; 14.6%) was to code the data using the initial codes and then conduct a second round of coding within the ‘top level’ codes, often using open-coding to allow for identification of emergent themes. The second (Pathway 2; 18.8%) was to fully code the transcripts with the initial codes while simultaneously identifying emerging codes and modifying code definitions as needed. Those that did not start with an initial list of codes similarly followed two pathways. The first (Pathway 3; 33.3%) was to develop a formal coding template after open-coding (e.g., code transcripts in full with an iterative relabeling and creation of sub-codes) and the second (Pathway 4; 10.4%) was to use the initial codes generated from inductively reading the transcripts as the primary analytic step.

From all pathways, several approaches were used to identify themes: group discussions of salient themes, comparisons of coded data to develop or refine themes, combining related codes into themes, or extracting themes from codes. A small number of articles discussed or implied that themes or concepts were further grouped into broader categories or classes. However, the limited details provided by the authors made it difficult to ascertain the process used.

Validity, Trustworthiness, and Credibility

Few papers explicitly discussed techniques used to strengthen validity ( Table 3 ). Maxwell (1996) defines qualitative validity as “the correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of account.” Member checks (18.8%; soliciting feedback on the credibility of the findings from members of the group from whom data were collected ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 )) and triangulation of methods (16.7%; assessing the consistency of findings across different data collection methods ( Patton, 2015 )) were the techniques reported most commonly. Peer debriefing (14.6%; external review of findings by a person familiar with the topic of study ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 )), prolonged engagement at a research site (10.4%), and analyst triangulation (10.4%; using multiple analysts to review and interpret findings ( Patton, 2015 )) were also reported. Triangulation of sources (assessing the consistency of findings across data sources within the same method ( Patton, 2015 )), audit trails (maintaining records of all steps taken throughout the research process to enable external auditing ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 )), and analysis of negative cases (examining cases that contradict or do not support emergent patterns and refining interpretations accordingly ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 )) were each mentioned only a few times. Lack of generalizability was discussed frequently, and was often a focus of the limitations section. Another commonly discussed threat to validity was an inability to draw conclusions about a construct or a domain of a construct because the sample was not diverse enough or because the number of participants in particular subgroups was too small. No papers discussed limitations to the completeness and accuracy of the data.

Approaches to establishing credibility, trustworthiness, and reflexivity in qualitative papers, Health Education & Behavior 2000-2015 (n=48)

Reflexivity

Reflexivity relates to the recognition that the perspective and position of the researcher shapes every step of the research process ( Creswell & Poth, 2018 ; Patton, 2015 ). Of the papers we reviewed, only four (8.3%) fully described the personal characteristics of the interviewers/facilitators (e.g. gender, occupation, training; Table 3 ). The majority (62.5%) provided minimal information about the interviewers (e.g. title or position), and 14 authors (29.2%) did not provide any information about personal characteristics. The vast majority of papers (87.5%) did not discuss the relationship and extent of interaction between interviewers/facilitators and participants. Only two papers explicitly discussed reflexivity, positionality, or potential personal bias based on the position of the researcher(s).

The present study sought to examine how the field of health education and health behavior has conducted and reported qualitative analysis over the past 15 years. We found great variation in the type and depth of analytic information reported. Although we were able to identify several broad analysis trajectories, the terminology used to describe the approaches varied widely, and the analytic techniques used were not described in great detail.

While the majority of articles reported whether data were double-coded, single-coded, or a combination thereof, additional detail on the coding method was infrequently provided. Saldaña (2016) describes two primary sets of coding methods that can be used in various combination: foundational first cycle codes (e.g. In Vivo, descriptive, open, structural), and conceptual second cycle codes (e.g. focused, pattern, theoretical). Each coding method possesses a unique set of strengths and can be used either solo or in tandem, depending upon the analytic objectives. For example, In Vivo codes, drawn verbatim from participant language and placed in quotes, are particularly useful for identifying and prioritizing participant voices and perspectives ( Saldana, 2016 ). Greater familiarity with, and more intentional application of, available techniques is likely to strengthen future research and accurately capture the ‘emic’ perspective of study participants.

Similarly, less than one quarter of studies described the use of matrices to organize coded data and support the identification of patterns, themes, and relationships. Matrices and other visual displays are widely discussed in the qualitative literature as an important organizing tool and stage in the analytic process ( Miles et al., 2014 ; Saldana & Omasta, 2018 ). They support the analyst in processing large quantities of data and drawing credible conclusions, tasks which are challenging for the brain to complete when the text is in extended form (i.e. coded transcripts) ( Miles et al., 2014 ). Like coding methods, myriad techniques exist for formulating matrices, which can be used for meeting various analytic objectives such as exploring specific variables, describing variability in findings, examining change across time, and explaining causal pathways ( Miles et al., 2014 ). Most qualitative software packages have extended capabilities in the construction of matrices and other visual displays.

Most authors reflected on their findings as a whole in article discussion sections. However, explicit descriptions of how themes or concepts were grouped together or related to one another—made into something greater than the sum of their parts—were rare. Miles et al. (2014) describe two tactics for systematically understanding the data as a whole: building a logical chain of evidence that describes how themes are causally linked to one another, and making conceptual coherence by aligning these themes with more generalized constructs that can be placed in a broader theoretical framework. Only one study in our review described the development of theory; while not a required outcome of analysis, moving from the identification of themes and patterns to such “higher-level abstraction” is what enables a study to transcend the particulars of the research project and draw more widely applicable conclusions ( Hennink et al., 2011 ; Saldana & Omasta, 2018 ).

All data analysis techniques will ideally flow from the broader inquiry framework and underlying paradigm within which the study is based ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2017 ; Creswell & Poth, 2018 ; Patton, 2015 ). Yet, as reported in our companion paper ( Kegler et al. 2018 ), only six articles described the use of a well-established framework to guide their study (e.g. ethnography, grounded theory), making it difficult to assess how the reported analytic techniques aligned with the study’s broader assumptions and objectives. Interestingly, the most common analytic references were Miles & Huberman, Patton, and Bernard & Ryan, references which do not clearly align with a particular analytic approach or inquiry framework, and Strauss & Corbin, references aligned with grounded theory, an approach only reported in one of the included articles. In their Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, O’Brien et al. (2014) assert that chosen methods should not only be described, but also justified. Encouraging intentional selection of an inquiry framework and complementary analytic techniques can strengthen qualitative research by compelling researchers to think through the implicit assumptions, limitations, and implications of their chosen approach.

When discussing validity of the research, papers overwhelmingly focused on the limited generalizability of their findings (a dimension of quantitative validity that Maxwell (1996) maintains is largely irrelevant for qualitative methods, yet one that is likely requested by peer reviewers and editors), and few discussed methods specific to qualitative research (e.g., member checks, reading for negative cases). It is notable that one of the least used strategies was the exploration of negative or disconfirming cases, rival explanations, and divergent patterns, given the importance of this approach in several foundational texts ( Miles et al., 2014 ; Patton, 2015 ). The primary focus on generalizability and the limited use of strategies designed to establish qualitative validity, may share a common root: the persistent hegemonic status of the quantitative paradigm. A more genuine embrace of qualitative methods in their own right may create space for a more comprehensive consideration of the specific nature of qualitative validity, and encourage investigators to apply and report such strategies in their work.

The researcher plays a unique role in qualitative inquiry: as the primary research instrument, they must subject their assumptions, decisions, actions, and conclusions to the same critical assessment they would any other instrument ( Hennink et al., 2011 ). However, we found that reflexivity and positionality on the part of the researcher was minimally addressed in the scope of the papers we reviewed. We encourage our fellow researchers to be more explicit in discussing how their training, position, sociodemographic characteristics, and relationship with participants may shape their own theoretical and methodological approach to the research, as well as their analysis and interpretation of findings. In some cases, this reflexivity may highlight the critical importance of building in efforts to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of their research, including peer debriefs, audit trails, and member checks.

Limitations

The present study is subject to several important limitations. Clear consensus on qualitative reporting standards still does not exist, and it is not our intention to criticize the work of fellow researchers. Many of the articles included in our review were published prior to the release of Tong et al.’s (2007) Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research, O’Brien et al.’s (2014) Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, and Levitt et al.’s (2018) Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research. Further, we could only assess articles based on the information reported. The information included in the articles may be incomplete due to journal space limitations and may not reflect all analytic approaches and techniques used in the study. Finally, our review was restricted to articles published in HE&B and is not intended to represent the conduct and reporting of qualitative methods across the entire field of health education and health behavior, or public health more broadly. As an official journal of the Society for Public Health Education, we felt that HE&B would provide a high quality snapshot of the qualitative work being done in our field. Future reviews should include qualitative research published in other journals in the field.

Implications

Qualitative research is one of the most important tools we have for understanding the complexity of human behavior, including its context-specificity, multi-level determinants, cross-cultural meaning, and variation over time. Although no clear consensus exists on how to conduct and report qualitative analysis, thoughtful application and transparent reporting of key “analytic building blocks” may have at least four interconnected benefits: 1) spurring the use of a broader array of available methods; 2) improving the ability of readers and reviewers to critically appraise findings and contextualize them within the broader literature; 3) improving opportunities for replication; and 4) enhancing the rigor of qualitative research paradigms.

This effort may be aided by expanding the use of matrices and other visual displays, diverse methods for coding, and techniques for establishing qualitative validity, as well as greater attention to researcher positionality and reflexivity, the broader conceptual and theoretical frameworks that may emerge from analysis, and a decreased focus on generalizability as a limitation. Given the continued centrality of positivist research paradigms in the field of public health, supporting the use and reporting of uniquely qualitative methods and concepts must be the joint effort of researchers, practitioners, reviewers, and editors—an effort that is embedded within a broader endeavor to increase appreciation for the unique benefits of qualitative research.

Common analytic trajectories of qualitative papers in Health Education & Behavior , 2000–2015

Contributor Information

Ilana G. Raskind, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University 1518 Clifton Rd. NE, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. [email protected].

Rachel C. Shelton, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Dawn L. Comeau, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Hannah L. F. Cooper, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Derek M. Griffith, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.

Michelle C. Kegler, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Bibliography and References Cited

• Bernard HR (1994). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard HR (2002). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (3rd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard HR (2005). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard HR, & Ryan GW (2010). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradbury-Jones C, Breckenridge J, Clark MT, Herber OR, Wagstaff C, & Taylor J (2017). The state of qualitative research in health and social science literature: a focused mapping review and synthesis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 627–645. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods In Denzin NK & Lincoln YS (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin JM, & Strauss A (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW, & Poth CN (2018). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guba E (1978) Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation. Los Angeles: University of California, UCLA Graduate School of Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hennink M, Hutter I, & Bailey A (2011). Qualitative Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kegler MC, Raskind IG, Comeau DL, Griffith DM, Cooper HLF, & Shelton RC (2018). Study Design and Use of Inquiry Frameworks in Qualitative Research Published in Health Education & Behavior. Health Education and Behavior, 0(0), 1090198118795018. doi: 10.1177/1090198118795018 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger R (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger R (1998) Analyzing & Reporting Focus Group Results Focus Group Kit 6 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger R, & Casey MA (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levitt HM, Bamberg M, Creswell JW, Frost DM, Josselson R, & Suarez-Orozco C (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln YS, & Guba E (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxwell J (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles MB, & Huberman AM (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles MB, & Huberman AM (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles MB, Huberman AM, & Saldana J (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, & Cook DA (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med, 89(9), 1245–1251. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton MQ (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton MQ (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton MQ (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189–1208. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton MQ (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton MQ (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan GW, & Bernard HR (2000). Data management and analysis methods In Denzin NK & Lincoln YS (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan GW, & Bernard HR (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saldana J (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saldana J, & Omasta M (2018). Qualitative Research: Analyzing Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer L, Ritchie J, Ormston R, O’Connor W, & Barnard M (2014). Analysis: Principles and Processes In Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nichols CM, & Ormston R (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students & Researchers (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss A, & Corbin JM (1994). Grounded theory methodology In Denzin NK & Lincoln YS (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss A, & Corbin JM (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong A, Sainsbury P, & Craig J (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (196.9 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections