Chapter 33 — Research methods II

Chapter 33 — Research methods II

Lesson map

Lesson 33 published. Map, example, EX097.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["33.1 Thematic analysis"]
  N2["33.2 Reliability"]
  N3["33.3 Reporting"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX097"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["33.1 Thematic analysis"]
  N2["33.2 Reliability"]
  N3["33.3 Reporting"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX097"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[33.1 Thematic analysis]
    |
    v
[33.2 Reliability]
    |
    v
[33.3 Reporting]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX097]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) analyse interview data thematically; (2) check reliability of coding; (3) report qualitative findings honestly.

33.1 Thematic analysis

Sofia returns to her interviews with twelve managers about access reviews. She reads transcripts several times, codes passages with short labels and groups codes into themes. Three themes emerge: lists were too long and used system jargon, managers did not know what their staff actually needed and reviews arrived at busy times. She learns that thematic analysis is systematic, not impressionistic, and requires a clear record of how codes became themes. Her codebook and memos record, for example, how the code jargon in lists became part of the first theme.

33.2 Reliability

To check her coding, a classmate independently codes four transcripts with Sofia's codebook. They agree on most passages, and discussion of disagreements refines two code definitions. She reports agreement using Cohen's kappa as discussed by Landis and Koch (1977) for interpreting agreement levels, while noting that qualitative research also values reflexivity: being aware of how her own role at Elmfield might shape what managers told her and what she noticed. Refining two code definitions after discussion with the classmate made the codebook clearer for her later analysis.

33.3 Reporting

Sofia reports themes with illustrative anonymised quotes, counts of how many managers raised each and the contrary views she found. Two managers liked the reviews and found them easy. She recommends shorter lists with plain descriptions, a short guide on role needs and scheduling reviews outside month-end. She learns that qualitative findings are most persuasive when they show their evidence, include dissent and lead to concrete changes that can later be tested. Including the two managers who found reviews easy shows that her recommendations are not built on uniform complaints.

Worked example

Sofia finds three themes, checks coding with a classmate and reports anonymised findings including dissent.

Synthetic case. Interviews are synthetic; Landis and Koch (1977) is real.

Errors and limits

Themes reflect the analyst's lens. Twelve interviews limit generality.

Exercises

• EX097 — Three themes. Name the three themes. Rubric: 3 = long jargon-filled lists, unknown staff needs, busy timing;; 2 = three;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX098 — Reflexivity. What is reflexivity in this study? Rubric: 3 = awareness of how Sofia's role shapes data;; 2 = self-awareness;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX099 — Dissent. Why report the two managers who liked reviews? Rubric: 3 = including dissent makes findings more credible;; 2 = balance;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Systematic coding, reliability checks and honest reporting make qualitative GRC research useful.

Continue studying — chapter 33 of 40

← Chapter 32 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 34 (draft) →