Often, researchers will be asked to quantify the level of agreement between the different codes, looking at how often the coding agrees : that is usually that two (or more) coders have applied the same code to the same section of the data. This is essentially a triangulation process between different researchers interpretations and coding of qualitative data. But multiple coders can also check each other’s work, and use differences to spark a discussion about the best way to interpret complex qualitative data. Some would argue that this mitigates the subjectivity of a single coder/interpreter, producing a more valid and rigorous analysis (a very positivist interpretation). However, some researchers aim for better accuracy and consistency by having multiple people code the data, and check that they are making the same interpretations. So to promote consistency, researchers often take a cyclical approach to coding. Often there many themes, rich and numerous sources, and difficult decisions to be made as to where sections of text fit. With complex data sets, and ‘wicked’ issues, there are times that a researcher coding qualitative data will not consistently code different sources to the same themes or codes in the same way. In qualitative analysis it’s sometimes difficult to agree even with yourself.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |