The hard part is not coding it. It is defending why you coded it that way
Most people arrive with transcripts and a vague sense that themes should emerge. Themes do not emerge. They are constructed by a person making decisions, and a committee will ask you to account for those decisions. We work through your data with you so that you can.
Get your free quote
We reply within 1 business hour, no delays.
No card details required · 100% confidential · On time, or it's free
A defensible analysis is a documented one
Qualitative analysis fails vivas for a predictable reason. The findings are often perfectly reasonable, and the candidate cannot explain how they got there. Asked why a code was merged, why a theme was named as it was, or when they decided they had enough data, they describe an impression rather than a process.
The work that prevents this is not more coding. It is keeping a record while you code: what you decided, when, and why you changed your mind. That record is the audit trail, and it is the difference between findings you can defend and findings you can only assert.
There is also a naming problem worth getting right early. Thematic analysis, framework analysis, grounded theory and content analysis are different methods with different commitments, and saying you did one while actually doing another is one of the most common corrections examiners issue.
- A coding frame you can explain, line by line
- The difference between a code, a category and a theme, applied consistently
- Saturation argued from your data rather than asserted
- An audit trail that answers the question before it is asked
What we work through with you
Always on your own data, never on data we produce
- Choosing a method that matches your research question and your epistemology
- Building and testing a coding frame on a first subset
- Moving from codes to categories to themes without losing the thread
- Reflexivity and positionality, written so it says something
- Presenting themes with evidence, including the quotes that complicate them
Picking the method before you open the software
The tool is downstream of the method. Choosing NVivo first and the method afterwards is the wrong order, and it shows in the write-up.
Reflexive thematic analysis
The most common choice and the most commonly misapplied. Themes are constructed rather than found, and the method asks you to say so explicitly. We work through the six phases in a way you can describe later.
Framework analysis
A matrix-based approach that suits applied and policy research, and work with a steering group. Useful when you need comparability across cases and a structure a non-academic audience can follow.
Grounded theory
A full methodology rather than a coding technique, with real commitments: theoretical sampling, constant comparison, and analysis that begins before data collection ends. Worth doing properly or not claiming.
Qualitative content analysis
Where you need counts and categories alongside interpretation. Often the right answer when a committee expects some systematic quantification of qualitative material.
Specific help within qualitative work
Technique and tools
- Qualitative codingBuilding a coding frame, intercoder agreement, moving to themes
- NVivoProject setup, coding in the software, queries and visualizations
Related
- Mixed methodsIntegrating qualitative and quantitative strands properly
- Writing up resultsTurning themes into a findings chapter with evidence
What a qualitative analysis engagement looks like
You send what you have
Transcripts, your research question, your proposal or methodology chapter, and any coding you have already done. We read all of it before the first session rather than during it.
We agree the method and defend it
Which approach fits your question, what it commits you to, and what your committee is likely to challenge. Written down, because this is the paragraph your methodology chapter needs.
You code, with support
You do the coding. We work through a first subset with you, test the frame, and identify where it is inconsistent. Then you apply it, and we review at intervals rather than at the end.
Codes become themes, deliberately
The step people rush. We work through how your categories combine, what each theme is actually claiming, and which quotes evidence it, including the ones that do not fit neatly.
You write it up, and we review it
Against your rubric or your committee's expectations. You get comments explaining what an examiner will question and why, in time for you to answer it.
It is your analysis, and you have to be able to defend it
- We do not code your data for you and hand back a finished analysis.
- We do not write your findings or discussion chapter.
- We do not invent, alter, clean toward a result, or supply data.
- We do not produce an analysis you cannot explain in your own words.
- We teach the method, work alongside you on your own material, and review what you produce.
There is a practical reason for this beyond integrity. An analysis someone else performed cannot be defended in a viva, and the viva is where it is tested. Read the full policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Beyond it being work submitted in your name, an analysis you did not perform is one you cannot defend, and the defense is the point at which it matters. We teach the method, work through a subset with you, and review the coding you do.
There is no fixed number, and any source giving you one without asking about your question, your population and your method is guessing. What matters is whether you can argue your sample was adequate for what you claimed to find. We help you build that argument from your own data rather than from a rule of thumb.
It is the point at which further data stops changing your analysis, and it has to be demonstrated rather than asserted. That usually means showing when new codes stopped appearing and how you know. It is also a contested concept, so part of the work is stating which definition you are using.
No. Plenty of good qualitative work is done in spreadsheets or on paper, and software does not make an analysis rigorous. NVivo helps most with large datasets, team coding and producing an audit trail, and it costs time to learn. We can advise either way and work in whichever you choose.
Usually that your themes summarize what people said rather than making an analytic claim about it. A theme named Barriers to access is a topic. A theme named Access is negotiated through informal relationships is a finding. Reworking that is one of the most common pieces of work we do.
Yes, and it is a common starting point. We read what you have done, tell you what an examiner will likely question, and work with you on the parts that need strengthening. That is often faster than starting again.
Data analysis support starts at $165 per session. Most people need a small number of sessions rather than ongoing work, and you get a figure after the first conversation.
Send us the transcripts and the research question
We will tell you which method actually fits, what it commits you to, and where your committee is most likely to push. Before you commit to anything.
Talk About My Data