Qualitative Analysis and Reporting Quick Reference
The analysis steps, the coding vocabulary, the ten questions, the worked categorisation and the full results-and-discussion guidance — consolidated onto one page, each item marked by what kind of claim it is.
How to read this page
Part one — what qualitative analysis involves
THE TWO PROPERTIES THE SOURCE USES TO CHARACTERISE IT
| Property | What the source says | What it rules out |
|---|---|---|
| Holistic perspective | "The whole phenomenon under study is understood as a complex system that is more than the sum of its parts; the focus is on complex interdependencies and system dynamics that cannot be reduced in a meaningful way to a few discrete variables and linear, cause and effect relationships" | Reducing the case to a handful of variables and a causal chain |
| Context sensitive | "Places findings in a social, historical, and temporal context; careful about the possibility or meaningfulness of generalisations across time and space; emphasises instead careful comparative case analyses and extrapolating patterns for possible transferability and adaptation in new settings" | Claiming your findings generalise across settings |
Both quoted. The second is the property that the week's own discussion guideline on generalisability contradicts.
Coding
Two words in that sentence carry the weight. Interpretive and subjective — the source is explicit that coding is not a mechanical operation, which is what makes the absence of a procedure for it more consequential than it first appears. See coding qualitative data in practice.
ANALYSIS VOCABULARY
| Term | Status in the material |
|---|---|
| Interim analysis | Defined — "cyclical process of collecting and analysing data during study" |
| Coding | Defined, three separate times across the week, in non-identical terms |
| Respondent validation | Named once, two words, no definition |
| Member checking | Named once in the notes. The same practice as respondent validation, and the material never says so |
| Field notes | Named repeatedly across weeks and defined nowhere |
| Action research | Carries the week's only ethics slide and is defined nowhere in the week |
The full eleven-term table is at terms used in qualitative data analysis.
The ten questions to put to your data
Supplied as a diagram of ten speech bubbles with no numbering, no arrows and no stated order. The arrangement below is this library's; the wording is the source's.
- Group events, places, people and so on together if they seem to have similar patterns, themes or trends
- Note any patterns, themes and trends — and ask whether they make sense
- Compare and contrast data to establish similarities and differences between the data groups
- Conduct simple counts to see whether patterns can be grouped by frequency of occurrence
- Using a table or matrix, look at interrelationships between different parts of the data
- Ask whether there are deviations from the patterns — and if so, whether they can be explained
- Ask whether the findings suggest that additional data needs to be collected
- Build a logical chain of evidence by looking for relationships between the data
- Ask what interesting stories emerge from the data
- Ask whether the findings agree with findings from other studies — and if not, whether that can be explained
The worked example
Part two — the results section
THE RESULTS SECTION, CONSOLIDATED
| Category | What the source supplies |
|---|---|
| Definition | Where you report findings from your study, based on the information gathered as a result of the methodology applied |
| Governing rules | Four: report findings from the study · without interpretation · in a logical sequence following the methodology section · always past tense |
| Structure options | Two: all results then all discussion, or section-by-section. One stated criterion — length |
| Required contents | Six numbered items |
| Non-textual elements | Five rules: in the text or at the back never both · referred to in numbered order · separated from appendix material · numbered with caption and heading · able to stand alone |
| Prohibitions | Seven |
| Worked example | None. Five slides of rules and no element shown |
| Length guidance | "Guided by the amount and types of data" — no figure |
| Qualitative-specific guidance | None |
Part two — the discussion section
THE FIVE GUIDELINES, IN THE SOURCE'S OWN ORDER
| # | Guideline | What sits under it |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Discuss the implications of the primary analyses first | Nothing. "Primary analyses" is defined nowhere in six weeks |
| 2 | Discuss statistical significance | A definition, and three parameters: sample size, variability, effect size. No threshold, no test, no procedure |
| 3 | Discuss weaknesses and strengths | Three sentences — the strongest content in the week, and unillustrated |
| 4 | Discuss the results against the published literature | Similarities, differences, and an attempt to explain both. Be selective; do not re-review the field |
| 5 | Discuss the generalisability of the results | Depends on study population, inclusion and exclusion criteria, follow-up rate — all clinical-trial vocabulary, none defined |
The numbering is the source's own. It instructs you to address them in this order and gives no reason for the order.
Three of the four turn on terms the source never defines — positive and negative findings, secondary analysis, post hoc analysis. And the week's own analysis sequence names Recommendations as a closing step that the material never mentions again. See drawing conclusions from your results.
Where each topic is treated in full
NAVIGATION
| Topic | Page |
|---|---|
| The two properties, and what they rule out | What analysing qualitative data involves |
| The step sequence and the recovered stage model | The steps in qualitative data analysis |
| Coding, defined three times | Coding qualitative data in practice |
| The worked categorisation, in full | Inductive categorisation: a complete worked example |
| The eleven-term vocabulary table | Terms used in qualitative data analysis |
| The ten questions | Ten questions to ask of your data |
| Software for qualitative analysis | Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis |
| Insider research and lapsed promises | Insider and action research ethics |
| Writing the results section | Writing the results section |
| The seven prohibitions and the three-way conflict | What does not belong in the results section |
| Placement and labelling of tables and figures | Presenting tables, figures and appendices |
| The discussion section | Writing the discussion section |
| The five guidelines in detail | The discussion guidelines |
| The four conclusion rules | Drawing conclusions from your results |
What to carry forward
- The week has two halves written for different readers. Part two is quantitative guidance filed under a qualitative week, and one of its guidelines contradicts part one outright.
- The worked categorisation is the only complete worked analysis in six weeks. It shows that categories were derived and not how — because the chapter it comes from is not supplied.
- The interpretation rule for the results section is stated three incompatible ways. Choose a convention, declare it at the top of the chapter, and hold it.
- The strongest three sentences in the week are the limitations guideline: weaknesses live in design, collection, analysis and interpretation, and disclosing one lets you defend it.
- Recommendations are named as a closing step and never explained. That boundary is yours to hold: a conclusion states what is; a recommendation states what to do.
Frequently asked questions
Why does this page cover both analysis and reporting?
Because one week of the supplied material covers both, in two halves, and they need to be read against each other — particularly where the reporting half contradicts the analysis half on generalisability.
Is the reporting guidance usable for a qualitative study?
Mostly. The word 'qualitative' appears nowhere in that half and its worked example is a correlation between two variables, so you are adapting material written for another design. Three of the five discussion guidelines transfer almost unchanged; one has no qualitative reading and one contradicts the same deck.
How were the six categories in the worked example derived?
The source does not say. It shows the unordered responses and the sorted result and gives no derivation rule, no second coder and no agreement check — because the example is reproduced from a textbook chapter that is not supplied with the material.
Can I explain a finding in the results section?
The source says both yes and no, on three slides across five slides. This library records all three positions and adjudicates none. Decide once, state your convention at the top of the chapter, and apply it without drift.
Is this page enough on its own?
No. A reference table can carry the lists and definitions; it cannot carry the conflicts, the provenance and the gaps that make each item safe to use. Use this page to find things and the linked pages to rely on them.
References and source attribution
- The supplied teaching source: weekly study notes, slide decks and assessment activities for a master's-level research methods subject in project management. Author, institution and year not stated in the supplied files.
- The worked categorisation example is reproduced by the source from a textbook chapter that is not supplied; its table numbering indicates chapter 17 of an unnamed text.
- The results and non-textual-element guidance is attributed by the source to a university library research-guide website; no author, title or date is given.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- What are the steps in analysing qualitative data?
- How do I derive inductive categories from open-ended responses?
- What are the ten questions to ask of qualitative data?
- What belongs in a results section and what belongs in the discussion?
- Should a qualitative study claim generalisability or transferability?