Responding to Silvana's account of dealing with her block. I enjoyed growing
vegetables on an allotment - SO rewarding to see carrots, radishes etc
materialising in a short time scale in contrast with the albatross. Still
find the gardening easier than the writing unfortunately.
----- Original Message -----
From: "SdG Associates" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: two days of coding and my head is gone already.


Just to respond to some further points made by Sarah and Harriet:

Re: Sarah's point about working under a deadline

Yes this is a real problem.  One issue is the need to educate funders that
the analysis stage for qualitative data requires more time and money.  I
know in academia budgets are limited all round but social science gets a
pretty poor deal compared with natural sciences. But that is a longer term
strategy.

In the short term, Sarah's strategy is sound.  I would add for the base data
material, the use of command files or table import is a very efficient way
of dealing quickly with what Lyn calls the 'boring coding' in qualitative
analysis (the stuff you already know about).  I see that Sarah is still
coding on the hard copy first.  I agree with Linda Gilbert's posting that
this is a transitional stage when you are getting used to working with
software.  It takes up more time to do it that way.  However, there is no
doubt that coding on screen feels very different than coding on paper (no
matter what software package you use).  I think it is something to do with
having to scroll around to see the whole. What I suggest is a coding
strategy whereby:

a) you identify the main themes you want to look at
b) divide your work up so that you say, this week I will look at Main Theme
A, next week at Main Theme B, etc.
c) code just for that main theme - initially broadly - so if you are looking
at conflict, you will code everything for conflict (and if you are working
in NUDIST,put it in a Free Node called conflict) This makes coding on screen
easier because the initial coding decision is broad so you are not weighing
up very fine distinctions between codes yet.  Also you are also just looking
for one thing. In a conversation I had with Linda Gilbert, she mentioned
something about research on the brain - that your brain can only hold a
limited amount of information at once.  So if you are trying to code a
document for everything at once you are putting an enormous strain on your
brain power - leading to fatigue and inevitably poor coding decisions. (Do
you care to comment Linda?? Did I get that right?)
d) Obviously, as you are going through the text coding broadly new ideas may
occur to you - these should be written immediately in memos and could lead
to a change in the analysis strategy you initially set out (In my previous
post, I mentioned you should limit yourself to only one hour coding maximum
(and I see that Lyn recommended that as well).
e) Once you have coded broadly for a theme, you can print out the text that
has been coded broadly.  You can reflect on for example the range of types
of conflict that appear.  You can then 'code-on' (Lyn's term) from that
broad code to finer level codes.  In NUDIST you can 'code-on' directly from
the Free Node.  There are different ways to do the same thing in other
software packages.  So these are just strategies to make coding on-screen
manageable and in the end they save a lot of time.

I am assuming here that you are doing straightforward thematic analysis.  I
have not gone into how you can adapt these strategies for other approaches
to qualitative analysis.

Re: Harriet's comments on unconscious processing in qualitative analysis

I think this is very important.  Again, I think it is something with the way
the brain works (any experts on brain research out there?). I just have
anecdotal evidence from my own experience.  When I was finishing my PhD in
the early 80s (which was based on a large scale qualitative study using life
histories) I had a complete block writing up.  (I enjoyed the analysis bit
playing with my colour coded index cards - no computers in those days).  The
LSE where I was registered is very close to Covent Garden.  A new exercise
place called the Dance Centre had just opened up and I started to go there
lunchtimes as a break from working at the LSE library.  I started to spend
more and more time there and less and less time at the library.  What I
liked about the classes at the Dance Centre was that I could visibly see
progress in my body.  I was getting fitter and more flexible.  Whereas I
found it difficult to see progress with writing up my thesis which just
seemed endless.  I also spent more time going to art galleries and found it
amazing how looking at paintings and photographs could stimulate my thinking
about my research.  After a push from my supervisor to get on with it (but
he timed that well) and working with a friend who had just finished her
thesis (which made me realise it was possible) I was able to write.  And the
writing really flowed.  I needed that space to synthesise the analysis.  I
was getting no where just sitting in the library.  I have since advised my
own PhD students not to feel guilty about taking this time out and encourage
them to do so.  However,  I must admit, I still can't help feeling guilty
when I do it - even though I know it is important to do so.  So I don't do
it as often as I should.  I think the problem is that the time spent doing
unconscious processing is not seen as productive work.  We all feel guilty
(or at least I do) about taking this time out instead of pushing ourselves
to keep working at our desks or computers.

Silvana

Dr. Silvana di Gregorio
SdG Associates
Research and Training Consultants
Tel/Fax:+44-(0)20-8806-1001
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Http://www.sdgassociates.demon.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Sarah Delaney <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 15 February 2000 14:17
Subject: Re: Fw: two days of coding and my head is gone already.


Yep - in response to both Kerralie and Silvana:

Your ideas are very much in harmony with mine, however, one idea I have been
developing over the last couple of days while this issue was being discussed
is that the implications and difficulties of coding very much depend on the
work context.  If it is possible to be flexible with time then you can
stretch the coding process out and really come to grips with the data.  This
is what I would like to do and have done in the past.  However, if one is
working to deadlines set by others then some judicious decisions have to be
made and this is where coding can 'wreck your head' as I said (under some
strain I must admit).

I have begun to develop a system to try and minimise coding overdose:

Initially code documents according to base data
Print them out under these codes
Code these hardcopies using a pencil
Enter these codes as FREE NODES
Play with coding under these free nodes.
Talk with other members of the team
Take a half day off
Only towards the end of coding do I enter the free nodes on the tree.

I actually use a recorder/dictaphone to make memos as writing them takes up
too much time!  then I can label the tape and play it back as I free code
everything.

But still problems, incidentally would any one fancy writing a quick paper
on this issue for the conference that Lyn was talking about?  If enough
people do we could organise a session or 'symposium' as they call it on the
website.  It is the second international conference on strategies in
qualitative research see web for more details:
http://www.ioe.ac.uk/conference_news/Codiary.htm

I might write one meself hmmmm

Okay

Sarah D


-----Original Message-----
From: Kerralie Oeuvray <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 15 February 2000 11:46
Subject: RE: Fw: two days of coding and my head is gone already.


Hello,
I just loved Lyn's answer which pulled together my "until then" fuzzy ideas.
Feeling thus encouraged (even more so after Charles' remark) I would just
like to underline the central place that, for me, MEMOS have in this
processus of coding using N4.

For each new document that I am going to code I start off a memo. Putting my
thoughts into writing already at that early stage helps me clarify what's
going on, globally, from this subjet's perspective. At the same time I get
going on the coding but inevitably new categories emerge directly from the
thinking I'm expressing in the memo. So I create new nodes. And quite often
I copy bits of the memo attached to the document to the new memo that I
immediatly attach to the new node. All that means that a "coding session"
often means that I work through "only" a couple of pages of transcription
whilst generating several pages of memos... as well as a few "tree trimming"
operations. Of course it all takes a lot of time. However, on arriving at
last at the end of a transcription, I have the feeling to have done far more
than "just" coded it.

I also appreciate the fact that I then have two types of memos: those
attached to the documents stay subjet specific ... or are integrated into
sujet groupes. Those attached to the nodes become the nitty gritty
transversal reflections. I need both levels. The first kind help me
understand the underlying logique of each subjet's contribution. The second
kind help me to go beyond the subjet to get to the more theoretical level. I
love playing on these two different levels.

To be more concret, all this means that a typical session of coding is like
this:
- paper copy of transcription (the document report) beside the computer
- memo created from document (this window stays open all the time)
- coding done using add/delete command (document chosen stays the same...
only the numbers change; I enlarge the window with the list of nodes as much
as possible)
- creation or continuation of memos attached to nodes
- (eventually trimming or remodeling of tree)

And at regulier intervals:
- a new text (done in Word) which tries to pull all that together in
relation to my research objectifs. I do this text in Word, after having
copied the relevant memos. HOWEVER, I usually end up doing a new, more
refined version which take the memos further ahead.

One last thing, if I'm so enthusiatic about memos, it's because I didn't use
them at first. I just had heaps of categories (nodes) and inevitably cut up
(separated into nodes) transcriptions. (I was totally lost, depressed, had
it, etc, etc the usual thing!). Each time I tried to pull my thinking
together I had the feeling I had nothing really that was solid. Apart from
the tree itself of course but each time I had to find again all my
reasonning behind it). And THEN (light falls!), I discovered the N4 memo
tool. So having lived without them, I can really appreciate their utility.

Bye
Kerrie

***
Kerralie Oeuvray
Département Travail social et politiques sociales
Université de Fribourg
Switzerland




>Dear All,
>
>This sort of sharing of practical experience is wonderful.  Do keep it up!
>
>Charles
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lyn Richards [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 10:30 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: Fw: two days of coding and my head is gone already.
>
>
>Sarah, if coding wrecks your head, don't!
>
>Or at least never code till it wrecks your head. Stop and write a brilliant
>methodological article about the challenges of qualitative coding and the
>ways qualitative software has skewed the method to coding! Or sit under an
>oak tree and think, rather than code.
>
>You've met the wellknown but little discussed problem I named coding
>fetishism in a pair of papers published in QHR. You message gets at its
>heart.  How about proposing a session on coding at the University of London
>IOE conference on NUD*IST/NVivo in September?
>
>I think coding fetishism is possibly the worst and also the most avoidable
>of the dysfunctional unintended consequences of qualitative computing!
>Trouble is, that when you are starting out, everything seems important, and
>indeed may be, and if you are anxious not to miss anything, you can get
into
>a mindset of "if it moves, code it!"  As you eloquently say, it's not a
>problem of software (indeed I found it worse working manually since the
>tasks were so grotty, and by the time you'd identified, copied and filed a
>page five times you couldn't remember why you thought it was an interesting
>interview in the first place.)  But it's a problem of all software that
>codes easily, since the easier it is to code, the more seductive is the
>mindset ("not sure what it's about but if I code it at least I won't lose
>it.")   Computers code real easy, and any good software of course will
>exploit this.
>
>We were very mindful of this problem in the five years developing NVivo,
and
>our goal was to provide a lot of other ways of linking data and ideas, ways
>the researcher could reach for in a process of thinking aloud (linking,
>editing, annotating, modeling).  That does not mean you need to switch to
>NVivo; rather, use the N4 toolkit to create the N4 ways out of coding.
>Before NVivo, N4 had the basic critical tools for this -  the mobility of
>nodes, the live node browser and the ability to memo.  Here are my
>self-imposed rules:
> 1)  Never think in terms of the final allocation  of text to a
>"right"  code. Make coding thinking-aloud, a way of expressing what you
>think is going on here.  It's tentative, exploratory, as long as it needs
to
>be.  So work with your nodes a lot, redefining, rethinking, memoing, moving
>around and merging.
> 2)  Never think of coding as one stage - it takes you to a node
>browser that allows you to look at all the material coded at a node and
>*re*view it, rethink, recode.  This means early on especially you can do
>broad brush coding, gathering material in broad headings, then going to the

>node to code on more finely into subtler dimensions of the concept.
> 3) Never allow myself to do uninterrupted coding for more than an
>hour. Because no qualtiative thinking can be expressed solely in coding for
>that long.
> 4)  Use free nodes freely - a friend of mine invented the lovely
>term *nodeworthy*.  If it's nodeworthy, (that means sounds like it might
>need to be a category in my thinking) don't wreck you head worrying where
it
>goes, just make it a free node.  Drop out of coding later to play with the
>free nodes and locate them in groups or merge them (or delete if it wasn't
>really nodeworthy!  How do you know?  Strauss used to say, "If it matters,
>it'll come up again.")
> 5)  If it's a thought, not an allocation to a known topic, don't
>code but annotate or memo.
>
>Hope all this helps.  Been there, done that.  If you're going to the London
>conference, and proposing a session on coding, please can I give a paper in
>it?
>cheers
>Lyn
>
>
>PS oops, be4 anyone asks for refs over the list, here they are!
> Richards, Lyn, "Closeness to Data: The Changing Goals of Qualitative
>Data handling", Qualitative Health Research, vol 8, no 3, pp. 319-328,
1998.
> Richards, Lyn, "Data Alive! The thinking behind NVivo Qualitative
>Health Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1999)
>
>
>
>Lyn Richards,
>Research Professor of Qualitative Methodology,  University of Western
>Sydney,
>Director, Research Services, Qualitative Solutions and Research.
>(email) [log in to unmask]
>(Ph) +61 3 9459 1699  (Fax) +61 3 9459 0435
>(snail) Box 171, La Trobe University PO, Vic 3083, Australia.
>http://www.qsr.com.au
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sarah Delaney [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:25 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]; Elliot Richmond
>> Subject: Re: Fw: two days of coding and my head is gone already.
>>
>> Aye Elliot but I am a poor veteran of both methods and they both WRECK MY
>> HEAD!!
>> By that I don't mean worries about not getting it right, nor using
>> software - just the whole process...especially on a monday.  When I used
>> paper and scissors i was constantly chasing scraps of paper - now I am a
>> zombie in front of a confuser.  On a Monday.  Merely a declaration of
>> frustration
>>
>> Thank you for your advice - I am now calmer.
>>
>> Sarah
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Elliot Richmond <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: Sarah Delaney <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 14 February 2000 16:51
>> Subject: Re: Fw: two days of coding and my head is gone already.
>>
>>
>> >At 4:24 PM 2/14/2000, Sarah Delaney wrote:
>> >>This is not a criticism of any software package at all:
>> >>
>> >>I am just in need of sharing my experience of coding ...
>> >>I had forgotten just how much it wrecks my head.
>> >>
>> >>Does it wreck anyone else's head at all??
>> >
>> >I do not believe this is a software issue at all. Whether coding is done
>> by
>> >hand with paper, scissors, and highlighters or is done using a software
>> >package is purely a matter of personal choice and convenience. I prefer
>> to
>> >print out the document (with line numbers), code it by hand (while
laying
>> >in the hammock in the back yard under the big oak tree), then go back
and
>> >enter the code into the software later.
>> >
>> >Remember, you can always go back and revise codes, definitions, trees,
>> >memos, whatever. It does not have to be right, perfect, or fit the "big"
>> >picture the first time through. Or vnen the second, third, fourth, or
>> fifth
>> >time through.
>> >
>> >Elliot Richmond
>> >PhD candidate in science education
>> >University of Texas at Austin
>> >[log in to unmask]
>> >http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4758/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>











%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%