Qualitative analysis

Qualitative content analysis: Adopting key questions as codes? One answer in 3 simple counter questions.

01. August 2024 6 minutes reading time

Can’t I just use the guiding questions from my interview guide as the main categories of my code tree for the qualitative content analysis? As is so often the case in qualitative research, there is no clear-cut answer to this question; instead, a number of aspects need to be weighed up “appropriately”. However, this weighing up is difficult, especially if you are perhaps dealing with the topic of qualitative research for the first time. So, if you are currently asking yourself whether you should adopt the guiding questions as codes, you can probably use these self-critical questions to derive your own procedure:

Does the guiding questionnaire really correspond to my research question?

Can the interviewees really answer my questions clearly?

Who structures what here? – Facts vs. meaning

Conclusion: Key questions and codes have different functions

 

Does the guiding questionnaire really correspond to my research question?

This seems to me to be a question that is often overlooked. An empirical paper (usually) attempts to answer a research question. In the theory section, you reflect on how the phenomenon can be described logically and linguistically, and then consider in the methods section what kind of empirical data and analyses can help answer the question. This brings us to the research question. This is often not identical to the research question.

The research question is aimed at the big picture:

“What questions remain unanswered, what theoretical points of reference are there, what terms and concepts are needed, and if so, how can they be defined and applied?”

the research question answers the small sub-area:

“What do I need to find out empirically in order to answer my research question?”

In order to obtain the appropriate empirical data (e.g. statements from test subjects), I consider how I can create a framework in the interview in which I can obtain answers to my research question. This leads me to my interview guide or other methods for designing the interview, such as the structuring technique, narration, etc.. This point is very presuppositional, as it depends very much on my expectations of the interview situation. For example:

My topic is “How is power negotiated in couple relationships?” (research question) I have decided to look at “everyday decision-making” as empirical data. (research question) and therefore ask the interviewees to tell me how they chose their last vacation destination together. (key question)

In this case, my guiding questionnaire may also contain optional questions to clarify and maintain the conversation. In more evaluative studies, guiding questions and research questions are often closer together. For example:

“How is program XY used by experts”. (research question) For example, I am interested in evaluations, elements used and problems (research question). In this case, one question is safe: “Which elements of program XY did you use?” (leading question)

The research question is an open question: “What do I want to find out” or “What empirical data do I want to obtain”. In this respect, the interview guide is a design tool for structuring, maintaining or thematically focusing the course of the interview. They therefore have different functions, which do not necessarily have to be thematically congruent. So far, purely functional. It also gets exciting when you think about what you can actually ask:

 

Can the interviewees really answer my questions clearly?

Sometimes you can ask for things directly. However, the idea of “asking for facts” presupposes that these facts are available to the interviewees in a reflected and rationally accessible form. In this case, what interests me as a researcher must also be clearly reflected internally by the interviewees. This is particularly the case in studies that are more evaluative in nature or very simple in terms of content. So rather when you want to “query” facts, opinions or assessments such as “Which party would you vote for if today were election Sunday?”.

In these studies, one question of the questionnaire usually corresponds to a very specific topic and my guideline is similar to a questionnaire with open answers. The range of possible answers is not predetermined, but the topic is clearly operationalized. In this case, it is perfectly possible and sensible to use the questions directly as main codes. Ultimately, the questions then represent individual variables and the answers are their characteristics, which can then be worked out with the help of QDA software, for example.

In qualitative studies, however, the topics are often more complex and are linked to various other aspects of everyday life, overlap, are interdependent or are essentially unconscious. It is about everyday and practical knowledge that may not be rationally reflected upon. In this case, I have to create a framework in which my conversation partners can report on their everyday situations or their knowledge of how to act.

e.g. “Can you describe a situation in which you were interested in party politics?”

In this case, the guiding questions are more of a tool for conducting the conversation, together with follow-up questions, narrative impulses, maintenance questions, etc. (more on this, for example, in our practice book). In this case, I set a certain framework with my questions: I ask the interviewees for detailed descriptions rather than concrete answers. Here it is quite clear: What interests me is not formulated directly in my question. My questions serve to set a framework and provide impetus. My interest and my questions may not be identical, and of course do not belong 1 to 1 in the code system.

Who structures what here? – Facts vs. meaning

In qualitative content analysis, codes generally help to analyze the material.
1. to structure it systematically in order to then

2. to look at it from different angles and

3. to then use these observations in a plausible and comprehensible manner for a results report.

If the structure of my codes is given by the guiding questions, then it can be assumed that our subject matter is already known and defined. Diagnostic questionnaires are structured in this way and are a very good example of this. The aim of such an approach is to evaluate or classify specific cases on the basis of an established system. In content analysis, this would be true if I applied a theoretical concept such as Goldberg and Williams ‘ concept of depression to see how this is pronounced in a specific milieu, for example. This is more about fact-based structuring.

If, on the other hand, the subject matter is unknown or vague, then it is precisely my task to use the code system to structure the initially complex, confusing and perhaps contradictory statements in a meaningful way. With the help of the code system, I use the material to create a first draft of theoretical concepts and connections that make it possible to describe this phenomenon systematically. This is more about structuring meaning and contexts.

These two approaches both work within qualitative content analysis. This antinomy in content analysis was already addressed by Kracauer in 1952. He describes how texts often contain more than just facts and are always embedded in a complex context.

“Documents which are not simply agglomerations of facts participate in the process of living, and every word in them vibrates with the intentions in which they originate and simultaneously foreshadows the indefinite effects they may produce.” Kracauer (1952)

I read this as a hint that you should be self-critical with the assumption that an interview is always about “pure facts”.

Conclusion: Key questions and codes have different functions

The answer to the question “Key questions as codes?” should already be given when planning the qualitative approach. If you are unsure here, you may have gone too quickly over the question of how you can ultimately answer the research question. Do you need clear, precise facts that can be clearly extracted from the material? Or are argumentation structures, contrasts and the description of action sequences more helpful and expectable? The next steps are then ultimately derived from this.

In short:

Use your guiding questions to set the thematic framework of the interview – Use the codes to structure the data according to your research interest. This can be identical, but often it is not.

Kracauer, Siegfried (1952): The challenge of qualitative content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16, pp. 631-642

The latest posts

4 minutes reading time
Documentary method – Proposal for the use of QDA software.

A simplified example, implemented with f4analyse. Introduction Here we show an example of the technical implementation of the evaluation steps …

3 minutes reading time
Automatically convert Zoom meetings to text

Zoom is a wonderfully practical tool for online meetings. And since the meeting is held on the computer, it can …

4 minutes reading time
Qualitative interviews – free checklist for data protection

How to conduct your interviews in compliance with the GDPR Qualitative interviews usually contain personal data, and these need to …

Back to overview