[06/28/2024] Observational Methods and Qualitative Data Analysis 5-6
Previous[07/02/2024] Prompt Engineering GuideNext[06/28/2024] Observational Methods and Qualitative Data Analysis 3-4
Last updated
Last updated
We have studied four prominent qualitative traditions: phenomenology, narrative inquiry, grounded theory, and ethnography. We will now focus on a fifth research tradition, case study, which is often used in tandem with the others. As we venture through this topic, you will discover why that is the case (pun intended)!
A case study involves the examination of a specific, bounded case (or cases), with focus on the case as a unit of analysis, versus the exploration of an overarching phenomenon, lived experience, or culture. Cases can be many things: people, sites, groups, classrooms, organizations, and more.
Note that the case of interest is said to be bounded, that is, within some boundary conditions. Sometimes the boundary refers to a geographic place or specific instance; there are temporal boundaries, too. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explain: “If there is no end, actually or theoretically, to the number of people who could be interviewed or to observations that could be conducted, then the phenomenon is not bounded enough to qualify as a case” (p. 39). Here are some examples of bounded cases:
a specific, unique two-week intervention for individuals experiencing loneliness,
Elon Musk’s virgin flight to space,
the founding of a local literacy program in a refugee resettlement area, and
six emergency room physicians during the initial weeks of the pandemic.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) denote some confusion within research circles about case studies, as “the process of conducting a case study is conflated with both the unit of study (the case) and the product of this type of investigation” (p. 37). For our purposes, we will focus on the methodological process: how case study is done, and when it is utilized. However, we also recognize that the product itself is often labeled “a case study.” Also, we note that a case study can be singular (focusing on one case) or feature multiple cases, generally no more than four or five.
Wycoff (2020) used case study to both document and explore a consultation, anchored in industrial organizational (I/O) psychology, with a community-based organization (CBO) serving urban youth. The case is specific: a consultation with a youth-serving CBO in New York during a designated period of time. The abstract is excerpted below; as with other courses related to qualitative research methods, we will carry facets of Wycoff’s study across this topic area in a quest to bring facets of this research method to life.
Community-based organizations (CBOs), part of a class of small-scale nonprofits deriving their membership and much of their contributions from the local community, are often led by individuals with expertise in a particular field and passion for the service their organizations provide to program recipients. This leadership provides great strength for CBOs, but the lack of management and other skills can often hinder efforts to design and implement expanded programs that maximize good and ensure organizational sustainability. This instrumental case study describes a 6-month consultation with a CBO in New York that provided access to sports for underserved high school students. It details the consultant’s attempts to apply theory to practice and respond to the shifting contexts of the CBO and community through a flexible, recursive consultation approach. Through application of utilization-focused evaluation methods and a modified program planning and evaluation framework, the consultant provides insights for other consultants of CBOs, specifically related to questioning organizational assumptions, cocreating and iteratively assessing the aims of a consultation, and balancing the need to respect CBO leadership and challenge assumptions-based thinking that impedes sustainability and growth. The article also highlights the key similarities and differences between CBOs and start-ups in terms of the organizational life cycle and problems they are likely to encounter (p. 163).
Lawyers argue cases, detectives investigate cases, and physicians treat cases. All of these involve some degree of research. Our focus, however, is more specific: on the qualitative case study method. That, in particular, has been advanced by quantitative and qualitative researchers across many fields: psychology, political science, medicine, law, business, and more. And it is not uncommon for case studies to draw from mixed methods, blending and integrating both quantitative and qualitative data to aptly and thoroughly describe the case or cases. Case study researchers use observations, like ethnographers, as well as interviews and artifact analyses!
Recall that case studies examine specific, bounded cases. Through holistic, descriptive exploration of cases, we come to understand a larger phenomenon, lived experience, or culture. In this light, case study questions focus on extrapolating characteristics, lessons, and nuances from particular units of analysis. Let’s consider these sample questions:
How do individuals in a short-term post-acute rehabilitation facility co-manage care? (Here, the case is one or more post-acute rehabilitation facilities, wherein researchers explore through observation and interviews several individuals’ care-management journeys.)
What is space travel like for a billionaire? (Here, the case becomes the virgin flight experience for Sir Richard Branson, and perhaps also for Elon Musk.)
On first glance, case study questions may seem no different than those of other research traditions. For our purposes, we will focus less on what the question asks and more on the bounded case through which the question will be answered.
Now, it is your turn to think more about what it means to focus on a case through which a broader issue is better understood. Write a sentence that completes this frame:
By studying [BLANK], I might learn more about [BLANK].
For example, “by studying how a local restaurant handled food prep during COVID-19, I might learn more about crisis management in restaurants during the pandemic. For another example, ‘by studying a period of school reform under new leadership, I might learn more about organizational change.”
In the preceding question, you were asked to think about a specific case that is familiar to you. This focus underscores the centrality of the bounded unit as a means of exploring broader contexts.
Let us delve into several real-life studies that showcase HOW case study practices come to life.
Theta vs. Iota: Liang and colleagues (2021) used case study to explore struggles facing youth with disabilities who are transitioning from foster care. To do this, they selected a singular theta: a longstanding foster father. In fact, the authors make this explicit: “. . . we define our case as the perspectives of a longstanding foster father—Walter—and his experiences of the transition to adulthood for one youth—Seth—who had multiple disability diagnoses” (p. 1). Iota encompasses the issues explored to bring this case to life. Specifically, such issues involve depicting the tensions between foster parents and the “system” (e.g., youth services workers, policy makers).
Instrumental Case Study: The Liang et al. (2021) study discussed in the preceding example is also an instrumental case study, in that the study of Walter’s case was chosen to illustrate and explore the struggles faced by foster youth with disability, particularly as they transition into adulthood. As the authors convey, the target was “understanding of interrelationships of complex issues” (p. 3), which was to be achieved through a laser focus on the particular, bounded case. Interviews, observations, and artifacts were utilized.
Intrinsic Case Study: Forber-Pratt and Lyew (2020) describe their approach to studying a group home, Shishur Sevay, for girls with disabilities in India: “An intrinsic case study is the study of a case (e.g., person, specific group, occupation, department, organization) where the case itself is of primary interest in the exploration. The exploration is driven by a desire to know more about the uniqueness of the particular case. Given that Shishur Sevay is an inclusive home and school in the middle of Kolkata, India, in its own right, this was intriguing in a place where inclusion and progressive rights for persons with disabilities are often not thought of” (p. 318). Herein, theta referred to Shishur Sevay; iota entailed focus on exploring how an inclusive school gives voice to students, particularly in a culture within which such voice is suppressed.
Purposeful Selection: For the intrinsic case study notated above, Shishur Sevay was the only logical selection, because a desire to understand theta drove the approach. However, Forber-Pratt and Lyew (2002) were mindful of how to invite individuals within Shishur Sevey to participate. They chose to invite all staff, with the exception of guards, to be interviewed; the same tactic was used for board members. Of note, all students were also invited, as long as guardian consent was retained with student assent. Every student participated in either an interview or observation. Girard and colleagues (2020) conducted a multiple, instrumental case study of care management activities by primary care nurses for people with mental and physical disorders. They described a two-tiered approach to sampling. First, the research team recruited three primary care clinics, all located in an urban area. Then they used purposeful sampling to recruit participants within each clinic: “Between 10 and 12 participants were targeted by the primary care clinic to obtain the perspective of a broad range of participants affected by nursing and collaborative care practices” (p. 3).
Finally, we will apply these practices to the case study idea you articulated previously. First we will work through an example. Then you will answer this series of questions on your own.
Reflective Question
Response
1.
Restate your case study idea from the fill-in-the-blank exercise.
By studying how a local restaurant handled food prep during COVID-19, I might learn more about crisis management in restaurants during the pandemic.
2.
Identifying theta and iota: What is the bounded unit of study (theta)? What issues (historical, philosophical, sociocultural, etc.), or iota, would you want to explore to understand this unit?
For the purposes of understanding this scenario, let us imagine that I am writing this in the midst of the pandemic, fall 2020.
Theta is a local, neighborhood restaurant that remained open during the entire COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of iota, I would like to explore how local, regional, and federal regulations on health safety influenced food preparation practices. Fiscal issues, and customer experiences, would also be interesting to explore.
3.
Intrinsic or Instrumental: Is this an intrinsic or instrumental approach? If intrinsic, notate what it is about the case that you find alluring to study. If instrumental, notate how the case itself will help you uncover insights into a broader phenomenon.
Instrumental. I’m most interested in exploring crisis management in local restaurants during COVID-19, and this particular case study will illustrate a unique instance.
4.
Purposeful Selection of Cases: How will you select your case and/or participants within that case?
I will utilize two-tiered sampling. First, I will select the case. Then I will select participants within the case. I will select the case based on convenience and access, given that I seek to explore local restaurants. At present, I intend to focus on a singular case (restaurant) versus others. Then I will utilize purposeful sampling to select participants who represent multiple voices and perspectives: the owner, workers, and customers.
Mirroring the work we did in the preceding example, in the following discussion, reflect on your positioning as it relates to a qualitative research question that interests you. Answer each of the four reflective questions, which are repeated next so that you may copy and paste them into an electronic document if you like.
Restate your case study idea from the fill-in-the-blank exercise.
What is the bounded unit of study (theta)? What issues (historical, philosophical, sociocultural, etc.), or iota, would you want to explore to understand this unit?
Is this an intrinsic or instrumental approach? If intrinsic, notate what it is about the case that you find alluring to study. If instrumental, notate how the case itself will help you uncover insights into a broader phenomenon.
How will you select your case and/or participants within that case?
A case study involves the examination of a specific, bounded case (or cases), with focus on the case as a unit of analysis, versus the exploration of an overarching phenomenon, lived experience, or culture. Cases can be many things: people, sites, groups, classrooms, organizations, and more.
Case study research can be complex and complicated to understand, so here are tangible examples:
An intrinsic case study: Mari studies the overnight success of a new, pop-up farmer’s stand held on Saturdays in her neighborhood. She is interested, intrinsically, in the specific case (theta) itself, versus the case of a farmer’s stand in a different town or context.
An instrumental case study: Roberto is intrigued by blind athletes completing full marathons. Two members of his running group, both blind, invite him to write a case study about their upcoming participation in a marathon. Here, the case was identified second to the phenomenon of interest. Exploring the experiences of Roberto’s two blind running mates is deemed instrumental.
Now that you’ve reviewed the primer on case study, let’s add onto the grid of research methods, which will help you compare the research traditions you’ve learned about thus far. Then, we will examine particular facets of case study research through the lens of a contemporary research study.
Research Method
Purpose-Focus?
Researcher’s Role?
Unique Practices?
Form-Outcome?
Case Study
To examine and describe a specific, bounded case, with focus on the case as a distinct unit of analysis.
The researcher approaches their role through the appropriate interpretive stance.
Theta and Iota
Intrinsic and Instrumental Approaches
Purposeful Selection of Cases
A detailed description and analysis of a case (or cases).
Ethnography
To describe and interpret culture: the values, beliefs, daily lives, patterns, rituals, symbols, and behaviors shared by a group of people.
The ethnographer is a fieldworker, immersed to varying degrees in the culture itself. The ethnographer seeks to understand the culture not through their own lens, but through that of its participants.
Fieldwork
Participant observation
Key informant interviews
Emic–Etic
The outcome varies widely. It may be published in a mainstream journal, rendered artistically, or arrayed for public consumption. Achieving transferability through thick description is prominently practiced.
Grounded Theory
To explore and explicate human processes, actions, and interactions, generating a theory grounded in participants’ lived experiences.
The constructivist researcher positions oneself, given their role in co-constructing theory. Memoing is used throughout the process.
Constant comparative method
Theoretical sampling
Saturation
Through constant comparative method (CCM), categories emerge and are linked, related, and connected in an emergent model that presents a theoretical explanation of the process being investigated.
Narrative Inquiry
To tell and study human experiences through story.
The researcher positions oneself, and may be co-located as both the primary instrument and a participant.
Self narratives (e.g., autoethnography)
First person artifacts
Three-dimensional inquiry space
Varies widely. Stories can be published intact, or may be analyzed for “storylines” (thematic elements) across participants. Stories may also be analyzed for their resonance with existing theories (e.g., feminist theory).
Phenomenology
To understand the essence (meaning) of lived experiences with phenomena.
The researcher attempts to suspend judgment, through epoche, and serves as the primary instrument.
Epoche
In-depth interviewing
Phenomenological reduction*
Imaginative variation*
* Indicates topics that will be explored later in the section on data analysis.
Experiences, as data, are reduced to essential themes. The outcome describes the “essence” of the phenomenon being investigated.
Let’s continue, with focus on a contemporary case.
Thompson et al. (2020) conducted a qualitative multiple case study of persons with Down syndrome, a common cause of intellectual and developmental disability. The following abstract documents their work, which we will utilize to highlight key characteristics associated with case study.
Background: Down syndrome (DS) is the most common genetic cause of intellectual disability. Prior research has primarily focused on associated medical problems and skill deficits. This study takes a novel positive psychology approach by examining critical individual characteristics and environmental factors that facilitate exceptional quality of life for people with DS.
Method: A qualitative multiple case study design was used to document the lives of four adults thriving with DS. Thriving was defined as high subjective well-being coupled with continued personal development.
Results: Descriptive contexts were provided for each case along with four overarching themes: a supportive social ecology, high expectations for independence, advocacy, and strengths facilitating happiness. A new conceptual framework for understanding thriving with DS was proposed.
Conclusions: These findings provide insight as to what is possible for people with DS, including ideas for future research and practice to promote thriving in the DS population.
For additional quotes from the Thompson et al. (2020) study, we now identify the ethnographic practice most relevant to each statement.
Purposeful sampling: “The present author recruited four individuals with DS with contextually diverse experiences (race, ethnicity, age, gender) through convenience and snowball sampling methods” (p. 1392). Purposeful sampling involves choosing cases that illustrate various facets, or perspectives, on the overarching topic.
Instrumental Case Study: The study aimed to understand how and why some individuals with DS experience psychological thriving” (p. 1391–1392). An instrumental case study is one in which the exploration of theta is instrumental, or even secondary, to understanding something else.
Triangulation: “Case studies investigate both individual and contextual factors through a variety of data collection processes (e.g., interviews, field observations, document review, standardized assessments)” (p. 1392). Triangulation involves the use of many methods, sources, theories, and investigators to understand a case, phenomenon, issue, etc.
Participant observation: “In all cases, the [researcher] joined participants in their activities, engaging and helping as appropriate” (p. 1394). Participant observation is a technique, used predominantly in ethnographic and case study research, wherein the researcher serves primarily as participant while co-engaging in observation.
Theta: “Four adults, all thriving with DS, in a medium-sized Western United States city.” Theta is the bounded case (unit of analysis).
Two-tier sampling: After selecting the four cases of individuals with DS, the authors “obtained permission to contact others within their social circles who subsequently consented to participate” (p. 1392). Two-tier sampling starts with the selection of a case or set of cases and is followed by the selection of individuals to interview or observe.
Iota: The study examined “critical individual characteristics and environmental factors that facilitate exceptional quality of life for people with DS” (p. 1390). Iota is the set of context-specific issues (historical, political, cultural, environmental) explored to understand theta.
Note: QDA entails a spiral of activities; data are collected and analyzed in cycles.
Qualitative data analysis (QDA) encompasses a recursive, systematic approach to making sense of data (e.g., interviews, observations, diaries, artifacts) that have been collected. Creswell (2013) offers this comprehensive definition:
Often qualitative researchers equate data analysis with approaches for analyzing text and image data. The process of analysis is much more. It also involves organizing the data, conducting a preliminary read-through of the database, coding and organizing themes, representing the data, and forming an interpretation of them. These steps are interconnected and form a spiral of activities . . . (p. 179).
We will preview general approaches to QDA: conducting read-throughs, coding textual data, formulating categories, and representing interpretations. There’s no one “best way” to perform QDA, though there are established procedures that stay true to the various trustworthiness criteria reviewed in an earlier unit. Throughout, we will weave QDA procedures common to many qualitative research traditions with QDA procedures sacred to individual research traditions (e.g., grounded theory).
Picture Sarah, an adult learner who served in the military for 12 years before entering college as a full-time student. She is also a part-time paramedic, a mother, and a volunteer with Wounded Warriors. Sarah is a psychology major, minoring in family studies. For her honors thesis, Sarah is using constructivist grounded theory (CGT) to study how mothers make sense of time. She has just finished three interviews, which she’ll begin to analyze before conducting her second batch of data collection. Instead of diving right into the process of coding, Sarah heeds her advisor’s advice to conduct an initial read-through of each transcript. What does that mean? How does Sarah start?
To begin, Sarah reads the data in its entirety. (Depending on the research tradition utilized, “the data” could be a textual transcript from an interview, a participant’s journal entry, an ethnographer’s field notes, etc.) Sarah will work with transcripts from three semi-structured interviews. (Usually, interviews are audio recorded; the conversation is then transcribed into a typed document.) Creswell (2013) would nudge Sarah to write notes, or memos, in the margins of the transcript: “short phrases, ideas, or key concepts that occur to the reader” (183). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) offer an example of this procedure:
You review the purpose of your study. You read and reread the data. You write a separate memo to yourself capturing your reflections, tentative themes, hunches, ideas, and things to pursue that are derived from this first set of data. You note things you want to ask, observe, or look for in your next round of data collection (p. 198).
Below, let’s find a snippet from one of Sarah’s interviews. Then, you’ll practice writing a short note (memo) to yourself summarizing what comes to mind as you review the data. Once you submit your memo, you will have the opportunity to read what Sarah wrote. Likely, your reflections will have commonalities and differences.
Sarah: In an “ordinary” week, how do you spend your time as a mother?
Participant: Well, I am a stay at home mom. Most people don’t think that’s real work, but it’s the best job I’ve ever known. I mean, I was, I guess I still am, an accountant. I was pretty high up with my firm when I decided to leave. And my husband’s income can support us both, so I’m a mom to three kids, all pretty energetic and precocious. They’re 3, 5, and 10 years old. I’ve been at home since the eldest was 5. Oh, the question was about how I spend my time, okay, let me get to that. Mostly, it’s hands on, with the kids. I don’t allow video games or movies to be the parent here. Sometimes that irritates my kids. We do a lot of cultural activities with the kids, you know, taking them to movies and plays and um, you know museums that are kid friendly. We love to hike so we do a lot of outdoor stuff with the kids. So besides shuttling the kids around to different activities which are, I guess, pretty athletic or intellectual or cultural, it’s just family time. Meaningful family time. That’s it, that’s about it.
Now, imagine that you are on Sarah’s research team; she has asked for your preliminary interpretation on this snippet of data. You are not performing a thorough analysis, though it is important for you to connect your ideas to the overarching question: How do mothers make sense of time? You are sensitizing yourself to the data, capturing initial reflections and ideas. Note things you would want to think about as you prepare for the next batch of interviews.
Note. Conducting read-throughs is an important component of QDA.
Take a look at Sarah’s brief memo below and compare it to your own:
She spends a lot of time doing cultural, athletic, intellectual, or outdoor activities with her kids. I thought she was avoiding the question, at first. Wondered if she was justifying being a stay-at-home mom . . . then she credentialed herself as an accountant. (Perhaps these background details are important to consider as I do additional interviews. Maybe time spent as a working mom differs from that of a stay-at-home mom, or a single mom. I should interview women who are not all stay-at-home mothers with spouses who work.) I also felt curious about her indictment of “technology” as a parent. In the interview, that rubbed me the wrong way, because I interviewed a single mom who needs to give her kid “tech time” in order to spend time doing their laundry, bills, and cooking. I need to interview a wide array of mothers. Should I narrow my question to focus on working mothers, single mothers, etc?
Not all memos need to be as exhaustive or lengthy as the one that Sarah wrote. And not all qualitative analysts utilize this procedure. However, those working from a constructivist or transformative worldview prioritize such processes. Read-throughs invite reflexivity (e.g., epoche); memos increase the trustworthiness criterion of dependability when written into an audit trail.
The read-through is vital to the work of narrative inquirers as they make meaning of stories shared by research participants. Notes Josselson (2011), “We do an overall reading of the interview to get a sense of how the narrative is structured and the general theme or themes. Then we return to each specific part to develop its meaning” (p. 228).
We will start by playing a game. The ultimate goal of this game is to create a well-organized shopping list that will help us get through most major U.S. grocery stores efficiently and effectively. You will review a set of phrases. Each one represents an item that you would purchase in a grocery store. For each of the phrases listed below, write a single, one-word answer. For instance, one of the phrases is “green fruit used to make guacamole.” Your answer is likely to be “avocado.”
Note that we are giving you four additional answers from the start: HONEY, SHAMPOO, SOUP, and TYLENOL. You’ll see that each of these answers will match to one of the phrases in the game.
Green fruit used to make guacamole
White liquid added to cereal
Lathering matter to help an individual shave their face and legs
Liquid consumed in the morning to help individuals “wake up”
Carbohydrate commonly paired with meatballs
A vegetable that may cause us to weep when diced
The liquid or powder that helps us clean our clothing
Crackers that are often crumbled into soup
The fruit used to make wine
The type of cheese often sprinkled on top of pasta
A medicine that helps alleviate aches and pains
Produced by bees, it commonly flavors tea
The spice most often used to flavor tacos or fajitas
If you have a sore throat, suck on these
All-American meat product also called a “frank”
Spongy, soy-based edible that is a vegetarian staple
Kids pack their lunches in these disposables
Red condiment that goes well with french fries
A salty, buttery treat sold in every movie theater
Rolls of paper sold by Scott, Charmin, etc.
Quaker markets this hot breakfast
Pepsi’s arch rival in the soda market
Most of us wash our hair with this product
Buy a loaf of this to make some sandwiches
Campbell’s _ _ _ _ is “um, um good”
Top a freshly baked cake with this sweet stuff
Emergent coding can entail a steep learning curve, so we will turn our attention to a basic introduction followed by practice opportunities. Grounded theorists engage in initial coding, focused coding, and axial coding in order to explore human processes. To Charmaz (2006), “Coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data . . . . you define what is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it means” (p. 46).
In this section, we start with initial and focused coding.
We stay close to the data, naming the codes as they are versus applying preconceived categories. Remember, grounded theory means that emerging models or theories are grounded in participants’ lived experiences. During initial coding, we refrain from over-analyzing and over-generalizing. Sometimes, initial coding is called “open coding,” which we can liken to having an open mind while analyzing the data. While conducting initial coding, we review data on a line-by-line or incident-by-incident basis. This may hinge on the overall research question and the preferred approach of the researcher.
Charmaz offers this helpful guide, a code for coding:
Remain open.
Stay close to the data.
Keep your codes simple and precise.
Construct short codes.
Preserve actions.
Compare data with data.
Move quickly through the data.
Let’s consider this chunk of text that describes a brief snippet of a participant’s experience moving through a depressive episode. Then we’ll share “what to do” and “what not to do” from the vantage of initial coding.
Participant: It sounds cliche but I did feel like I was shedding a fog. Coming out of a fog. It was, uh, slow. Really slow, like days long. When I was in the fog, I thought, “I’ll never come out of this. It’s too thick.” But then slowly, it lost its heaviness. I sensed glimpses of light and I remember telling my mom, “I feel like I might be able to laugh again.” That possibility, laughter, seemed possible, but, you know, terribly distant.
Analytically, we might move through this line-by-line, coding each phrase or sentence that maps to our overarching research question. Or, we might consider this to be an incident to code holistically. Either way, it’s critical to apply the code for coding during the initial phase. Let’s look carefully at the first four sentences (we added the brackets to the transcript for our discussion here):
[It sounds cliche but I did feel like I was shedding a fog. Coming out of a fog.] {It was, uh, slow. Really slow, like days long.}
Remaining close to the data, we might name (code) the first passage, in the square brackets [ ] as “shedding a fog,” or “coming out of a fog.” Some analysts might keep the action of feeling, coding the segment more precisely: “feeling like shedding a fog.”
Now, let’s take a look at the text inside the curly brackets { }. Imagine that this was coded by a researcher as, “not happening fast enough,” or “way too slow.” These are overinterpretations; the participant did not relate slow to fast, nor did they necessarily state that the process was slower than expected.
As we go through initial coding, we also begin to compare our initial codes to other initial codes; this showcases the constant comparative method (CCM).
The second phase of grounded theory coding is focused coding. Here we use the more significant or frequently used codes (developed during initial coding) to help us sort through batches of data. As we are coding new sets of data, we ask ourselves, “Where in this set of data are we seeing resonance with codes already established?” Simultaneously, we ask, “What else is happening in this data that hasn’t already been named or coded?” Focused coding showcases the “heart and soul” of CCM. We compare new datasets to those already coded, determining how adequate our current codes may be.
Now it’s your turn to apply what you’ve learned. We don’t expect you to be an expert. Coding takes skill, determination, flexibility, and introspection to master. This critical thinking activity will guide you through the very elemental stage of initial coding. In a more intermediate or advanced qualitative research class, you will have the opportunity to delve deeply into advanced coding, analysis, and integration.
Apply Charmaz’s code for coding to the numbered segments below, assigning an initial code to each. After entering in your code, you can review an “expert opinion” from a grounded theorist, comparing it to your own.
As you will recall, Sarah is studying how mothers make sense of time; she intends to create a grounded theory. What follows is an excerpt from a transcript that you’ve already reviewed. Now please use Charmaz’s coding to craft initial codes for the indicated passages. You can assign more than one code to any given passage. (Note: An analyst would code all lines of relevance to the research question. For the purpose of practice, we are only coding the demarcated areas.)
Sarah: In an “ordinary” week, how do you spend your time as a mother?
Participant: (1) [Well, I am a stay at home mom.] (2) [Most people don’t think that’s real work, but it’s the best job I’ve ever known.] I mean, I was, I guess I still am, an accountant. I was pretty high up with my firm when I decided to leave. And my husband’s income can support us both, so I’m a mom to three kids, all pretty energetic and precocious. They’re 3, 5, and 10 years old. I’ve been at home since the eldest was 5. Oh, the question was about how I spend my time, okay, let me get to that. (3) [Mostly, it’s hands on, with the kids.] I don’t allow video games or movies to be the parent here. Sometimes that irritates my kids. (4)[We do a lot of cultural activities with the kids, you know, taking them to movies and plays and um, you know museums that are kid friendly.] We love to hike so we do a lot of outdoor stuff with the kids. So besides shuttling the kids around to different activities which are, I guess, pretty athletic or intellectual or cultural, it’s just family time. Meaningful family time. That’s it, that’s about it.
Note. Constructivist grounded theorists engage in initial coding, focused coding, and axial coding in order to craft a theory or model.
Great work! Congratulations on completing this example of initial coding. Consider your work against the following:
Passage marked 1: The code “identifying as stay at home mom” (or something similar) is recommended. We begin with a gerund to preserve action and remain close to the participant’s own words.
Passage marked 2: This is a complicated segment, as it’s vulnerable to over-generalization. An analyst might be tempted to code the first phrase as “feeling judged,” but that may not aptly convey the participant’s real sentiments. Consider the code, “noting others’ judgments of ‘real work’” as an alternative, while also making sure to code the participant’s latter remark (e.g., “naming motherhood as the best job”).
Passage marked 3: The code “spending hands-on time with kids” best reflects elements of the code for coding.
Passage marked 4: Consider these expert opinions on coding this segment: “doing cultural activities,” “doing kid-friendly cultural activities,” or “going to cultural activities—movies, museums.” Some researchers prefer precision, whereas others may remain more general.
Many novices will say that coding is harder than it looks, as it takes perseverance and work to apply the code for coding thoughtfully. We recommend moving steadily through the text, line by line, skipping over items that are more difficult to code. There, we can always consider member checking, or bringing in a peer perspective to assist. Note, also, that as coding progresses, we will begin comparing codes to other codes. Some codes will be applied to new text; existing codes may be collapsed, combined, or integrated with other codes.
Commonly, our initial and focused codes, when collected across transcripts, are chunked together by the researcher into units, themes, categories, or families. For simplification, we will utilize “categories” to refer to the clustering together, or organizing of, our a priori and/or emergent codes. This is the essence of categorization—aggregating codes under a common unit or idea.
We will illustrate by continuing to play the grocery game. Imagine that a team of two researchers worked together to construct the following grocery list. You will notice that next to each of the items is a set of parentheses containing a number. The team culled grocery lists from a group of five friends (representing many sets of data), so they’ll purchase more than one product. For instance, they’ll buy seven avocados and two packages of hot dogs, but just one gallon of soy milk. As we move through focused coding, many of our initial codes grow more saturated as we add new data.
Your task: You have been asked to consult with them as they relate the codes to each other, organizing them to make for an efficient, effective trip to the grocery store. Additional items (i.e., “more codes”) could later be added. Keep that in mind as you are forming categories.
avocado (7)
soy milk (1)
shaving cream (1)
coffee (3)
linguini (4)
onion (5)
laundry detergent (1)
oyster crackers (1)
red grapes (4)
grated parmesan cheese (1)
Tylenol (1)
honey (3)
taco seasoning (1)
cough drops (2)
hot dogs (2)
tofu (1)
paper bags (1)
ketchup (3)
popcorn (4)
toilet paper (12)
oatmeal (2)
Coca-Cola (6)
shampoo (3)
sandwich bread (2)
soup (5)
icing (2)
Try to sort the items into categories in a way that seems to make sense to you. The methods for doing this kind of work vary. Some qualitative researchers would print off the list above, then scissor-cut each of the items into a little slip. Then they’d sort the items into units. Others might utilize a highlighter or crayon to color-code like items. Use whatever seems most useful to you.
Note. Formulating categories is an important component of QDA.
Here are categorizations that some students have come up with in the past. They range from general to specific. Compare your categories with theirs.
Student group A:
Category 1: “Perishable items”
avocado, soy milk, onion, red grapes, grated parmesan cheese, hot dogs, tofu, sandwich bread
Category 2: “Nonperishable items”
shaving cream, coffee, linguini, laundry detergent, oyster crackers, Tylenol, cough drops, honey, taco seasoning, paper bags, ketchup, popcorn, toilet paper, oatmeal, Coca-Cola, shampoo, soup, icing
Student group B:
Category 1: Refrigerated or frozen items
soy milk, grated parmesan cheese, hot dogs, tofu
Category 2: Dry goods
sandwich bread, coffee, linguini, oyster crackers, honey, taco seasoning, paper bags, ketchup, popcorn, oatmeal, Coca-Cola, soup, icing
Category 3: Hygiene and Medicine
shaving cream, Tylenol, toilet paper, shampoo, laundry detergent, cough drops
Category 4: Produce
avocado, onion, red grapes
Student group C:
Category 1: Refrigerated—Dairy and Non-Dairy
soy milk, grated parmesan cheese
Category 2: Refrigerated—Regular and Vegetarian Proteins
hot dogs, tofu
Category 3: Breads
sandwich bread
Category 4: Condiments and Spices
honey, taco seasoning, ketchup
Category 5: Canned Goods
soup
Category 6: Beverages
coffee, Coca-Cola
Category 7: Snack items
oyster crackers, popcorn
Category 8: Dry pasta, Rice, Grains
linguini, oatmeal
Category 9: Baking
icing
Category 10: Personal Care
shaving cream, Tylenol, toilet paper, shampoo, cough drops
Category 11: Cleaning/Other
paper bags, laundry detergent
As indicated, Group A made two very general categories. As new initial and focused codes are added, however, they may be tasked with subdividing the categories further. This represents one way of engaging in categorization—starting with the “top” of a hierarchy and building out subcategories as new codes are added.
Conversely, Group C tackled the activity with a focus on precision and pragmatics. They kept in mind the need to engage in an efficient and effective grocery store trip, and such a level of organization helped with that focus. Though some categories contain few items, the students recalled that other items would potentially be added to the list.
Grounded theorists refer to categorization as axial coding—the researcher begins to sort, synthesize, and connect codes into subcategories and categories. Axial coding supplies an analytical toolkit that helps researchers “bring data back together again in a coherent whole” (Charmaz, 2016, p. 60).
As you will recall, qualitative inquiry is recursive; coding processes are seldom linear. In other words, few analysts move straight from initial coding to focused and axial processes; rather, skilled researchers often move back and forth, or may concurrently engage in axial and focused processes. Charmaz (2011) reminds us that “we interact with the data, compare data with data as we code them, and check our emerging theoretical categories by collecting more data . . .” (p. 166).
Using the example referenced under initial coding, let us imagine that the code “coming out of a fog” mapped not only to the interview mentioned, but to 8 out of 10 total participant narratives. Not only that, but let us say that all participants in the study described nature-based images to depict their experiences of moving through depressive episodes. Thus, a category (or “container”) emerges, which the analyst names, “healing images from nature.” Then an array of codes, which might also include “seeing the light,” “budding after a long winter,” and “catching the wind in my sails” maps into that broader healing-images-from-nature category.
Note. The photographs depict M&Ms in three formations: a spray of M&Ms, a color-clustered grouping of M&Ms, and a graphic abstract representation created from M&Ms. The first photo is representative of initial and focused coding. The second photo represents categorization (axial coding). The third photograph represents interpretation.
The photographs above depict M&M candies in three formations: a spray of M&Ms coming out of a candy bag, a well-organized color-clustered grouping of M&Ms, and a graphic abstract representation created from M&Ms.
The first photograph is representative of initial and focused coding—each color M&M represents a code. Some codes (blue and red) have more M&Ms than others.
The second photograph reflects categorization. M&Ms are organized into color categories.
The final photograph pulls the M&Ms into a broader, interpretive representation. This is akin to the interpretative phase of QDA.
How do we get from categorization to an interpretive representation? Most importantly, you want your ultimate representation to align with your research question and the tradition you have employed. Advanced study of QDA provides grounding in the art and science of interpretation. Some research questions and traditions are amenable to graphic representations of models, theories, or figures. Researchers will craft diagrams or images that illuminate the links between categories. Others may render interpretations in the form of textual summaries or comparison tables.
Let’s play the last part of the grocery store game. Using the categories and items from student group C (with a few extras thrown in) you are tasked (on your honor!) with creating a diagram, image, or map that allows for a swift, effective grocery shopping trip. Imagine you’ll be sending your shopper to a major grocery store chain (e.g., Albertsons, Publix, Kroger, Food Lion, H-E-B, etc.) in the continental United States. Certainly, giving them the list below is plausible. But maybe you can imagine another way to make the shopping trip effective.
Shopping items:
Category 1: Refrigerated—Dairy and Non-Dairy
soy milk, grated parmesan cheese, cottage cheese
Category 2: Refrigerated—Regular and Vegetarian Proteins
hot dogs, tofu
Category 3: Breads
sandwich bread, hot dog buns
Category 4: Condiments and Spices
honey, taco seasoning, ketchup, maple syrup
Category 5: Canned Goods
soup, black beans, canned corn
Category 6: Beverages
coffee, Coca-Cola, sparkling water
Category 7: Snack items
oyster crackers, popcorn, tortilla chips
Category 8: Dry pasta, Rice, Grains
linguini, oatmeal, quinoa
Category 9: Baking
icing, flour, dark brown sugar
Category 10: Personal Care
shaving cream, Tylenol, toilet paper, shampoo, cough drops
Category 11: Cleaning/Other
paper bags, laundry detergent, plastic sandwich bags
Past students have come up with representations that have ranged from straightforward lists to more complex, creative diagrams. Consider this representation: One team created a visual map of a typical U.S. grocery store, wherein produce, refrigerated items, frozen items, and bakery items are almost always arrayed on the periphery of the store. Dry and canned goods, in addition to household items, exist in the central aisles. The categories and specific grocery list items were superimposed on the visual map with check boxes. The students also crafted arrows to indicate the most efficient pathways to completing the shopping adventure. How does this representation compare to what you were thinking?
Note. Honing one’s interpretive skills requires deliberate practice.
Categorization and interpretation take deliberate practice. As mentioned earlier, most novice qualitative researchers work in partnership with skilled inquirers through an apprenticeship model to hone their crafts. Many analysts work in teams, which promotes reflexivity, mitigates bias, invites participatory procedures, and achieves efficiencies. Also, many researchers utilize computer-based tools like NVivo, Dedoose, and MaxQDA. These are programs that help with data organization, coding, analysis, and integration.
Phenomenologists work through two deliberate processes that sensitize them to the interpretation of lived experience while remaining vested in the process of researcher reflexivity. In QDA, the practice of phenomenological reduction means examining the data nonjudgmentally. Wertz (2011) offers this example: “In studying experiences of automobile accidents, the psychologist focuses on the way drivers attribute fault to themselves and to others . . . without investigating or judging the objective existence of fault” (p. 125).
Pretend you have interviewed four individuals about the experience of having their identities compromised. Your data reveal depictions of individuals’ direct experiences (e.g., “Ironically, it was my best friend who stole my identity.”) as well as their own meaning-making accounts of the experience (e.g., “It felt violating and now I’m a whole lot more cautious of people.”). Tangibly, you would move through phenomenological reduction by going through the transcribed data and highlighting units of meaning that help us understand the participants’ essence of having their identities compromised. The task of phenomenological reduction allows you to understand this experience as it was lived and understood, describing its texture, qualities, and more for the reader.
Next scholars draw from a step called imaginative variation, which Dan Zahavi defines as, “An imaginatively guided analysis that seeks to disclose the essential features of the topic under investigation.” Let’s say that a group of categories emerges that depict the lived experience of having one’s identity stolen. As researchers, we want to be certain that the themes work together, helping us understand the phenomenon’s nature. Imaginative variation means looking at themes from multiple angles. Van Manen (1990) invites phenomenologists to ask two core questions:
Is the phenomenon still the same if we imaginatively change or delete this theme?
Does the phenomenon without this theme lose its fundamental meaning?
These questions help researchers apprehend whether a theme truly belongs to a phenomenon, or if it is incidental.
Here are two concrete examples, rooted in studies explored in the phenomenology unit, of these techniques.
Phenomenological reduction: Applying various trustworthiness tools, Curran et al. (2017) worked as a team to reduce, or collapse the data “into higher order conceptual categories” (p. 818) that depict participants’ lived experiences: (1) self as mother, (2) fetal caregiving and cognitive representations, and (3) enacting maternal identity during hospitalization. In each of these three spheres, the researchers “observe women adopting active parenting styles, focusing on their willingness to sacrifice for the pregnancy’s health, and framing their experiences in ways typical of women who have already delivered a baby” (p. 818).
Imaginative variation: Gupta’s (2021) work showcases a powerful approach to the use of imaginative variation. In her research article she describes the approach as follows:
When interpreting phenomenological data to capture its essential structure, all themes should work together in an interrelated manner to co-constitute the phenomenon under inquiry. Moreover, each theme must be essential to the nature of the phenomenon, such that the phenomenon would change if one theme was removed. To affirm that these themes were essential to the closeted phenomenon, I engaged in an imaginary variation process for which I asked: ‘Is the lived experience of the closet still the same if I change or delete this theme from my interpretation? Does the phenomenon of the closet, without this theme, lose its fundamental meaning? (Van Manen 1990, 107). After probing the themes in this manner, I felt secure that each were essential ‘parts’ that co-constituted the ‘whole’ of the closeted experience (p. 8).
Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) contains a vast set of practices, procedures, and methods spanning multiple research traditions: narrative inquiry, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study, among others. In this learning unit, we have focused on general tactics, including the read-through, as well as initial, focused, and axial coding into categorization, and integration. The goal is for you to gain an introduction to QDA, with practice along the way.
To be reminded of definitions, please review the chart below. Examples pertaining to Chandra’s study (used in the course What is Qualitative Research?) are noted. Chandra is a first-generation college student who found herself intrigued by wonderings about how students like herself whose parents did not attend college learned how to learn. For the purposes of the QDA unit, let us imagine that Chandra is conducting a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) study guided by this research question:
What are first generation college students’ lived experiences of ‘learning how to learn’ at their university? What processes underlie or inform students’ experiences?
Given the use of CGT, Chandra’s codes will not be a priori (i.e., prefigured) like the “avocado” code was for you in the grocery shopping activity. Rather, Chandra will be taking an emergent approach, naming the codes using initial and focused procedures.
QDA practice
Example
Read-through: A researcher reviews transcripts and/or field notes through the lens of the research question. The inquirer jots down reflections, hunches, ideas to pursue, and potential directions for the study.
Chandra noted, right away, that many facets of her early participants’ experiences differed from each other, but encompassed a common life experience. She made a note to ask new interviewees about that same life experience.
Initial coding: Researchers stay close to the data, naming the codes as they are versus applying preconceived categories. Data are reviewed on a line-by-line or incident-by-incident basis.
Chandra coded two catches of transcripts (n = 7), which had already been member-checked, and used gerunds to retain a sense of process. She focused on naming codes to participants’ perspectives, meanings, and actions—all in the context of her research question. By the end of the 7th transcript, Chandra had developed 58 initial codes.
Focused coding: When coding new sets of data, researchers ask, “Where in this set are we seeing resonance with codes already established?” And, “What else is happening in this data that hasn’t already been named or coded?” Focused coding compares new datasets to those already coded.
As Chandra coded her 8th interview, she noticed that much of what she is coding fits into initial codes developed from earlier interviews. This is focused coding.
Chandra then coded the next batch using a focused approach while recognizing that new, emergent codes may also be coded. By the end of the 13th interview, Chandra has reached saturation; there are 71 unique codes.
Axial coding: During this phase, categories take shape from common codes or clusters of codes. The researcher begins to sort, synthesize, and connect codes.
After three batches of interviews, Chandra’s 71 codes are well saturated with data snippets across 13 interviews. She begins to sort these codes into categories describing common processes across interviewees’ lived experiences. Imagine that each of these categories contains, respectively, codes developed during the initial and focused processes:
Feeling “totally lost”
Floundering in the classroom
Performing or “faking it”
Recognizing small victories
Finding a mentor
Reclaiming
Integration: Categories are arrayed into a representative textual description, figure, map, or visual that reflects the research question.
Six major themes, linked by a common perspective across all themes called “resilience”, anchor a graphic that Chandra has devised to visually showcase her core results.
Note. This image depicts the stages of resilience, in order: feeling totally lost, floundering, faking it, recognizing victories, finding a mentor, and reclaiming.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice Hall.
Chabris, C. F., & Simons, D. J. (2010). The invisible gorilla: how our intuitions deceive us. Crown.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory (1st ed.). Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2011). A constructivist grounded theory analysis of losing and regaining a valued self. In F. J. Wertz, K. Charmaz, L. M. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson, and E. McSpadden (Eds). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis (pp. 165–204). The Guilford Press.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.
Comas-Díaz, L. & Torres Rivera, E. (2020). Liberation Psychology: Theory, Method, Practice, and Social Justice. American Psychological Association.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Evans, C. T. (2020). A fear come true: an autobiographical narrative inquiry of birth trauma through an Adlerian lens. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(4), 361–371.
Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217–223.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New directions for evaluation, (74). Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsible and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass.
Harn, M., Azios, J., Azios, M., & Smith, D. (2019). The lived experience of college students with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A phenomenological study. College Student Journal, 53(4), 450–464.
Hathcoat, J. Meixner, C., & Nicholas, M. C. (2018). Ontology and epistemology. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer.
Illich, I. (1976). Medicine is a major threat to health. An interview by Sam Keen. Psychology Today, 9(12), 66–67.
Josselson, R. (2011). Narrative research: Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing story. In F. J. Wertz, K. Charmaz, L. M. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson, and E. McSpadden (Eds). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis (pp. 224–242). The Guilford Press.
Josselson, R. (2013). Interviewing for qualitative inquiry: A relational approach. The Guilford Press.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Hoffman, D. J. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. Jossey-Bass.
Levitt, H. M. (2021). Essentials of critical constructivist grounded theory. American Psychological Association.
Lichtman, M. (2014). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (3rd ed.). Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.
Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and reflexivity in research processes. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mayan, M. J., (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Left Coast Press, Inc.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Sage.
Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Prentice-Hall.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Taylor, K. A., & Russel-Mayhew, S. (2018). Working to balance: A preliminary constructivist grounded theory of young women’s positive embodiment. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 52(4), 339–365.
Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and future. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Wertz, F. J. (2011). A phenomenological psychological approach to trauma and resilience. In F. J. Wertz, K. Charmaz, L. M. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson, and E. McSpadden (Eds). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis (pp. 124–164). The Guilford Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (2010). Ethnography lessons: A primer. Left Coast Press.
Wycoff, K. L. (2021). Consultation with a community-based organization serving urban youth: A case study. Consulting Psychology Journal, 75(2), 163–180.
Zahavi, D. (2019). Phenomenology: The basics. Routledge.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2012). Tales from the field: Reflections on four decades of ethnography. Qualitative Sociology Review, 8(1), 10–32.
Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the research process. The Qualitative Report, 19(33), 1–9.
Cardinal, T., Kim, M., Pegg, J., & Branch-Mueller, J. (2021). Being and becoming: A collaborative autobiographical narrative inquiry. Brock Education Journal, 30(1), 30–50.
Chretien, K. C., Tuck, M. G., Simon, M., Singh, L. O., & Kind, T. (2015). A digital ethnography of medical students who use Twitter for professional development. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(11), 1673–80.
Curran, L., McCoyd, J., Munch, S., & Wilkenfeld, B. (2017). Practicing maternal virtues prematurely: The phenomenology of material identity in medically high-risk pregnancy. Health Care for Women International, 38(8), 813–832.
Dayal, H., Buck, G., & Clandinin, D. J. (2021). A narrative inquiry into counsellor trainees’ experiences of working with trauma. Reflective Practice, 22(4), 474–487.
Drew, T., Vo, M. L. H., & Wolfe, J. M. (2014). The invisible gorilla strikes again: Sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychol Sci, 24(9). 1848–1853.
Farrow, R. and Mathers, B. (2020), "Conceptualising Research Methodology for Doctoral Researchers in Open Education (with penguins)", International Journal of Management and Applied Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 349–359.
Fork, S. (2021). On becoming a ‘real’ Jew: An ethnography of adolescents’ identity formation in a Jewish community in Germany. Culture & Psychology, 27(1), 52–66.
Forber-Pratt, A. J., & Lyew, D. A. (3030). A model case: Specialized group home for girls with disabilities in India. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 37, 315–327.
Girard, A., Ellefsen, E., Roberge, P., Bernard-Hamel, J., & Hudon, C. (2020). Adoption of care management activities by primary care nurses for people with common mental disorders and physical conditions: A multiple case study. Journal of Psychiatric Mental Health in Nursing, 00, 1–18.
Gupta, N. (2022). Illuminating the trauma of the LGBTQ closet: A cinematic-phenomenological study and film about existential rights. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 19(3), 632–657.
Hartmann, W. E., St. Arnault, D. M., & Gone, J. P. (2018). A return to “the clinic” for community psychology: Lessons from a clinical ethnography in urban American Indian behavioral health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61, 62–75.
Herron, D. L., Priest, H. M., & Read, S. (2020). Supporting people with an intellectual disability and dementia: A constructivist grounded theory study exploring care providers’ views and experiences in the UK. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 33, 1405–1417.
Leonard, S. R. K., & Willig, C. (2020). The experience of living with very high empathy: A critical realist, pragmatic approach to exploring objective and subjective layers of the phenomenon. Counseling Psychotherapy Research, 21, 52–65.
Liang, A., Lashewicz, B., Mitchell, J., & Smith, W. (2021). Mixed perceptions of self-determination: Struggles facing youth with disabilities transitioning from foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 121, 1–9.
Mertens, D. M., Fraser, J., & Heimlich, J. E. (2008). M or F? Gender, identity, and the transformative paradigm. Museums & Social Issues, 3(1), 93–106.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Epoche, phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and synthesis. In Phenomenological Research Methods—accessed online through Sage.
Nieto-Rucian, V., & Furness, P. J. (2019). The experience of growing up with a parent with schizophrenia—a qualitative study. Qualitative Psychology, 6(3), 254–267.
Parathian, H. E., McLennan, M. R., Hill, C. M., Frazão-Moreira, A., & Hockings, K. J. (2018). Breaking through disciplinary barriers: Human-wildlife interactions and multispecies ethnography. International Journal of Primatology, 39, 749–775.
Quayle, A. F., & Sonn, C. C. (2019). Amplifying the voices of indigenous elders through community arts and narrative inquiry: Stories of oppression, psychosocial suffering, and survival. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64, 46–58.
Rodriguez, S. K. & Reid Kerrigan, M. (2019). “A better person coming out than going in”: Community college transfer students and constructivist grounded theory. Community College Journal, 43(6), 455–476.
Saldaña, J. (2018). Researcher, analyze thyself. The Qualitative Report, 23(9), 2036–2046.
Salvador, K., Paetz, A. M., & Tippetts, M. M. (2020). “We all have a little more homework to do:”: A constructivist grounded theory study of transformative learning processes for practicing music teachers encountering social justice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 68(2), 193–215.
Shalka, T. R. (2019). Saplings in the hurricane: A grounded theory of college trauma and identity development. The Review of Higher Education, (42)2, 739–764.
Thompson, T., Talapatra, D., Hazel, C. E., Coleman, J., & Cutforth, N. (2020). Thriving with Down syndrome: A qualitative multiple case study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability, 33, 1390–1404.
Ward, E. C. (2005). Keeping it real: A grounded theory study of African American clients engaging in counseling at a community mental health agency. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 471–481.
