Maximizing Transparency in a Doctoral Thesis1: The Complexities of Writing About the Use of QSR*NVIVO Within a Grounded Theory Study

By J. Bringer, L. Johnston, C. Brackenridge. 2004

246 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This article discusses the challenges of how to provide a transparent account of the use of the software program QSR*NVIVO (QSR, 2000) within a grounded theory framework (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Psychology students are increasingly pursuing qualitative research projects to such an extent that the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) advise that students should have skill in the use of computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) (Economic and Social Research Council, 2001). Unlike quantitative studies, rigid formulae do not exist for writing-up qualitative projects for doctoral theses. Most authors, however, agree that transparency is essential when communicating the findings of qualitative research. Sparkes (2001) recommends that evaluative criteria for qualitative research should be commensurable with the aims, objectives, and epistemological assumptions of the research project. Likewise, the use of CAQDAS should vary according to the research methodology followed, and thus researchers should include a discussion of how CAQDAS was used. This article describes how the evolving process of coding data, writing memos, categorizing, and theorizing were integrated into the written thesis. The structure of the written document is described including considerations about restructuring and the difficulties of writing about an iterative process within a linear document.

Subfields: Education, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/40921476945d0ccb78ef64e898a0f404616d84c7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. L. Johnston
2. Andrew Hutchison
3. Jeff Breckon
4. C. Brackenridge
5. J. Bringer

In Sociology and Political Science

1. L. Johnston
2. C. Brackenridge
3. J. Bringer

Citations in the corpus

• Using Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software to Develop a Grounded Theory Project (2004, methodology): “Writing the research journal within NVIVO had many benefits over a hardbound copy, including being able to code thoughts within the journal and creating live links to specific documents, nodes, and media reports (Bringer, Johnston, and Brackenridge 2004).”
• Using QSR‐NVivo to facilitate the development of a grounded theory project: an account of a worked example (2010, background): “It is generally accepted that when communicating the findings of qualitative work, transparency is essential (Bringer et al., 2004, 2007).”