Coding perspective

As regards the coding perspective, most experienced researchers (Mello, 2002; Patton, 2002; Dewalt and DeWalt, 2002, Saldaña, 2009) agree that each qualitative study has to employ a unique coding method to suit the unique needs of the study. This might be a rather difficult task for inexperienced researchers and Saldaña (2009) advises that they should try a combination of the following first cycle coding methods:

1. Attribute coding. This type of coding is “the notion of basic descriptive information such as the field setting, participant characteristics or demographics, data format, time frames, and other variables” (Saldaña, 2009:70). Attribute coding can be used for all data as a management technique.

2. Structural coding or holistic coding. The former applies “a content-based or conceptual phrase representing a topic of enquiry to a segment of data that relates to a specific research question used to frame the interview” (MacQueen et al., 2008:124). The latter attempts to “grasp basic themes or issues in the data by absorbing them as a whole rather than by analysing them line by line” (Dey, 1993:104). Structural and holistic coding can be used for all data as a “grand tour” overview.

115

3. Descriptive coding. This type of coding summarises in a word or short phrase the main topic of a passage of qualitative data. According to Saldaña (2009), descriptive code should be an identification of a topic (i.e. what is talked or written about), not an abbreviation of the content (i.e. the substance of the message). Descriptive coding can be used for field notes, documents, and artifacts as a detailed inventory of their contents. 4. In vivo coding (i.e. a method of extracting terms used by participants themselves and

using them to represent a topic of enquiry to a segment of data), initial coding (i.e. a method of “breaking down qualitative data into discrete parts, closely examining them, and comparing them for similarities and difference” (Corbin and Strauss, 1998:102), and/or values coding (i.e. “the application of codes onto qualitative data that reflect a participant’s values, attitudes, and beliefs, representing his or her perspectives or worldviews” (Saldaña, 2009:110). These three coding methods can be used for interview transcripts as a method of attuning oneself to participants’ language, perspectives and worldviews.

Böhm (2004:271) believes that the use of some wh-questions (e.g. What is at issue here?; What phenomenon is being addressed?; What aspects of the phenomenon are addressed?; What actors are involved?; When and Where?; and What reasons are given or may be deduced?) can help researchers in the process of writing inductively14)_{-conceptualised codes (i.e. “tags or labels that}

help catalogue key concepts while preserving the context in which these concepts occur” (Miles and Huberman, 1994:56). During this first coding cycle, preserving the connections between participants’ thoughts and their context seems to be of extreme importance (Saldaña, 2009). To achieve this end, the researcher needs to re-immerse him/herself in the data through repeated reading of the text to comprehend its meaning in its entirety (Pope et al., 2000). In addition, writing notes in the text to describe any ideas relevant to the research questions, as well as to highlight links within and between ideas can be helpful. Indeed, Richards and Morse (2007:137) claim that “coding links you (the researcher) from data to the idea and from the idea to all the data pertaining to that idea”. The process of writing and re-writing memos, coding, and re-coding continues as new data are collected, and does not terminate until there is enough field evidence to fully develop concepts, including new concepts emerging from freshly-collected data.

---

14) _{“Inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data;}

they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis” (Patton, 1980:306).

116 4.6.6 Generating categories

Meanwhile, codes are transcribed into a coding sheet, and patterns that bear commonalities (i.e. similar concept, frequency, order or happen in predictably different ways, appear to cause each other, or happen in relation to other activities (Hatch, 2012) are combined into broader categories. The constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) is often used in qualitative content analysis to generate categories because, through the development of interpretive memos and the systematic comparison of each individual theme assigned to a category with the other themes assigned to the same category, the researcher can refine dimensions of the existing codes and/or identify new ones. To add clarity and consistency to the process of coding schemes, Lincoln and Guba (1985:349) suggest the development of categories that are internally homogenous (i.e. all themes that fit into a category must hold together in some meaningful way), and externally heterogeneous (i.e. clear and bold differences among categories). In addition, Weber (1990) recommends the use of a coding manual where category names and rules for assigning codes are clearly defined, and examples for each category are included. Lastly, coding a sample of the data at the beginning and at the end of the process can add validity and consistency to the research. This testing and re-testing approach is essential to assess the clarity of category definitions and coding rules, as well as the consistency of the coder’s understanding of the categories and coding rules (Weber, 1990). The process of re-checking the validity and consistency of the coding scheme is particularly important when more than one coder is involved in the process of category formation, and when new codes and categories are added as more data is collected.