The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The 1,000-Page Question
Abstract
This article takes issue with a question sometimes heard at workshops on interview research: "How shall I find a method to analyze the 1,000 pages of interview transcripts I have collected?" Rather than merely dismiss the question as one posed too late and leading in unproductive directions or attempt to answer the question directly, the article seeks to bring into the open the empiristic presuppositions about qualitative research implied by the question. The question is itself treated as a text to be analyzed. Seven critical key terms are selected for interpretation: how, have, method, analyze, 1,000 pages, transcripts, and collected. The interpretation focuses on both what is said and what is not said in the question, as well as what could have been said to lead interview analyses in more constructive directions. Finally, the present interpretation of the question is discussed as an example of qualitative analysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods
Charters, E. (2003) · Brock Education Journal · doi:10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38 · Cited by 748
The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition: Views from the field
Bullen, P. A., & Love, P. E. D. (2010) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2009.12.005 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Kvale, S.
- Venue
- Qualitative Inquiry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 275-284
- ISSN
- 1077-8004 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7565
- OpenAlex
- W2061503366
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The 1,000-Page Question. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/107780049600200302
- The paper
- Kvale, S. (1996). The 1,000-Page Question. Qualitative Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200302
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
