Artifact 3: Wrapping My Head Around Qualitative Data

When I started this assignment on coding transcripts from educational focus group meetings, I was a bit overwhelmed. I read the assignment guidelines and it seemed like there were so many different parts to the assignment, and I had never had to code a transcript before (1.1, 1.2). While I consider myself an analytical person, I am much more comfortable with quantitative data, working with numbers, and knowing there is a right and wrong answer. If there is a right and wrong, I can be confident that I will get to the “right” answer. So, when the assignment guidelines specifically said, “remember there’s no right or wrong way to code a transcript”, I was worried about whether I would be successful.

The guidelines also requested me to journal throughout the assignment, which had always felt a little unnatural in a professional context, but I was open to the process and diligently kept a learning journal which helped me keep track of my progress and process (1.5). While it started out a little like pulling teeth, I got into the flow after a few days of working on it, I would do some coding and then write a short journal entry. It became a great way to give me a mental reset to continue on with the rest of my day, and I started to appreciate the transitional nature of the journal, as the end of my daily schoolwork (1.9). I knew that once I decided to switch gears and write my journal entry, it was the end of my schoolwork for the day. This way I could move on to my next task with a clear mind, and leave the coding behind rather than thinking about it continuously throughout the rest of my day. At the end of the project, my journal also provided a good reference for my learning process, as I could go back and follow my procedure and method. This gave me the reassurance that I had been thorough enough with my analysis.

When starting the project, I began with reading the required literature and then got to work reading the transcripts. The simulated focus group meetings were lengthy (1.4). The first step was to print them off on paper, to make notetaking and highlighting easier. This is a method I’ve come to appreciate since starting the MDDE program, which usually has online resources. Highlighting and notetaking can still be done online, but with some activities having a pencil and paper in hand makes all the difference. I think with assignments like this, that involve a lot of re-reading and dynamic notes and ideas that change throughout the progress of the assignment, I like to have a physical copy of the notes. What follows for me, is understanding the importance of allowing my own students opportunities to use different resources and methods depending on the activity and their own learning needs (2.1, 2.7).

A few codes came out easily off the bat. The focus group was discussing distance education, its main concepts including instructional design and program design considerations, and how technology is related to distance education (2.4, 2.7). I chose codes like adult ed, adapt, community, flexibility, and opportunity, to name a few. The codes were general concepts that came up often in the conversations. I came up with a definition for each code, a flag, a qualifier, and an example. Altogether I came up with 25 codes. This process was tedious, as I didn’t know if my codes were correct (even though I should have known there is no correct or incorrect in this realm). As I moved forward with the coding process, I had to be clear and concise creating all the context for each code. I got stuck at one point because the definition, flag, and qualification sections all seemed to be saying the same thing. I decided to ask for help in the forum, and got clarity on the distinction between each section, and how to clearly define and describe each aspect in table format (4.1, 4.2). I had to revise my codes, as sometimes codes came up so frequently, they had to be broken into two separate ones. For example, flexibility was a major theme in the discussion, so I ended up breaking it down into personal flexibility and program flexibility. Similarly, sometimes a code only came up once or twice and so I decided to combine it with another code. I originally had new ideas as a code, but it was only used once, so I decided to combine it with the more general concept of change.

Ultimately this process felt really frustrating for me, because I felt like I had no direction on whether I was on the right track or not, but I still had to come up with definitions and justifications for each of my codes (1.6, 1.8). I came to realize why in practice, researchers often either code together, or have multiple groups code and then come together to review and amalgamate their findings (1.12). Qualitative data can be so subjective, it’s impossible for two people to come up with the same answer. Instead, we trust that collaboration can bring the important points to light.

As the coding process was ongoing, I started on my categories and definitions. This process made me go back again to rethink my codes. My journal emphasized this. “Each time I go back and read through there are a few more little tweaks and changes that I want to make. I wonder if I’m still improving the analysis or just wasting my time thinking too convolutedly.” This iterative process was long and onerous, and brought the realization that while not as clear and direct as statistical analysis of quantitative data, the analysis of qualitative data still goes through a very systematic process (5.4, 5.8). It was also a lesson in the difficulty of understanding when theoretical saturation has been reached. Theoretical saturation refers to the point when qualitative researchers can stop collecting data, because no new data are being found. Due to the iterative and repetitive process of coding, I found it difficult to know when enough was enough. Each time I re-read the manuscript or my analysis I kept making minor changes and eventually just had to stop and remind myself that there are no wrong answers (5.6, 5.13). By the end of the assignment, once I had embraced the ‘no right or wrong’ mentality, it gave me some peace of mine knowing that I had done my best and made great efforts to be thorough but succinct in my work. At this point there had also been forum discussions and communication with the instructor, which also emphasizes that things were going well, and I was on the right track with my analysis development. This type of multi-level collaboration, between peers and instructors has been one of the more supportive aspects of taking the MDDE program, as it not only created some of the connection I was missing from a traditional program, but allowed me to get formative feedback before I submitted my work (4.3, 6.2).

At the end of the assignment, I went back and re-read my own journal entries, as we were meant to include a portion of it in our assignment package. My journal did an excellent job of showing my learning throughout the process (1.11). My first entries echoed my overwhelm with the scope of the project and then laid out my first steps and uncertainty. By the end of the assignment my understanding of the coding process was evident. Eventually I came to terms with the iterative nature of qualitative analysis, and how collaboration is a powerful tool used by those working in the field (1.9). I realized that my reflective process had guided my understanding and gave me a place to go back to when assessing my own success in the activity, because reading the journal post-analysis is a form of self-assessment. I could see what I did and how my thought process had shifted. The journal also gave me some mental clarity each day, when I decided to end my work and transition to non-academic activities (1.13, 3.1). In this way, I came to understand reflection as a powerful tool that can actually make me more efficient and able to manage the dynamic commitments that come with work-life balance (6.6).

When I look back to this assignment, I feel successful, because I came to understand the nature of qualitative analysis in a new way. It was one of my first experiences analyzing and discussing theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research data (5.1, 5.3). I learned to appreciate the positive impact of professional reflection and was able to conquer a new activity (coding a transcript) in a cohesive and justifiable context.