Page 315 -

304 CHAPTER 11 Analyzing qualitative data

data, making comparisons between data, and so on, and in doing so, deriving con-
cepts to stand for those data, then developing those concepts in terms of their proper-
ties and dimensions.” A set of well-developed procedures for analyzing text content
has been widely accepted in the social sciences and related fields. Because qualita-
tive research is more vulnerable to bias than quantitative research, it is particularly
important to follow the standard procedure to ensure the quality of the analysis and
the robustness of the results.
Solid qualitative analysis depends on accurately identified concepts that later serve
as “categories for which data are sought and in which data are grouped” (Blumer,
1969). The concepts and categories are also a means of establishing relations (e.g.,
correlation, causal relationships, etc.) between different entities. Identifying the cod-
ing categories can be a very daunting task for inexperienced researchers. The coding
categories may come from several sources: an existing theoretical framework, the
researcher’s interpretation (research-denoted concepts), and original terms provided
by the participants (in vivo codes).
There are two different approaches to analyzing the data: emergent coding and a
priori coding. Emergent coding refers to the qualitative analyses conducted without
any theory or model that might guide your analysis—you simply start by noting
interesting concepts or ideas and continually refine those ideas until you are able to
form a coherent model that captures the important details. A priori coding involves
the use of an established theory or hypothesis to guide the selection of coding catego-
ries. These categories might come from previously published work in related areas,
or from your own prior investigations of the topic at hand.
To illustrate the difference between these coding approaches, consider the earlier
example of the study of online communities. Some studies might be based on the
theory participants in the communities adopted various roles that defined the man-
ner and content of their posts. These studies would use a priori coding, with codes
selected to identify roles and their application. Other studies might be interested in
understanding conversational dynamics more broadly, without any particular starting
point. These studies would use emergent codes. Some studies might use a mixture
of both methods.
The choice between emergent and a priori coding is often not straightforward.
Existing theories and codes have the advantage of being somewhat simpler to use,
at the potential costs of broader insight that might come from the more open-ended
analysis associated with open coding.

11.4.1.1 Grounded theory and emergent coding
If you are working on a new topic that has very limited literature to build on, you
may not be able to find established theories that allow you to develop the cod-
ing categories in advance. In this case, the emergent coding approach, based on
the notion of grounded theory, is appropriate. Grounded theory was first proposed
by Glaser and Strauss (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), who described a qualitative re-
search method that seeks to develop theory that is “grounded in data systematically
gathered and analyzed” (Myers, 2013). Grounded theory is an inductive research