The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ensuring Rigor in Qualitative Data Analysis: A Design Research Approach to Coding Combining NVivo With Traditional Material Methods
Open accessAbstract
Deep and insightful interactions with the data are a prerequisite for qualitative data interpretation, in particular, in the generation of grounded theory. The researcher must also employ imaginative insight as they attempt to make sense of the data and generate understanding and theory. Design research is also dependent upon the researchers’ creative interpretation of the data. To support the research process, designers surround themselves with data, both as a source of empirical information and inspiration to trigger imaginative insights. Constant interaction with the data is integral to design research methodology. This article explores a design researchers approach to qualitative data analysis, in particular, the use of traditional tools such as colored pens, paper, and sticky notes with the CAQDAS software, NVivo for analysis, and the associated implications for rigor. A design researchers’ approach which is grounded in a practice which maximizes researcher data interaction in a variety of learning modalities ensures the analysis process is rigorous and productive. Reflection on the authors’ research analysis process, combined with consultation with the literature, would suggest digital analysis software packages such as NVivo do not fully scaffold the analysis process. They do, however, provide excellent data management and retrieval facilities that support analysis and write-up. This research finds that coding using traditional tools such as colored pens, paper, and sticky notes supporting data analysis combined with digital software packages such as NVivo supporting data management offer a valid and tested analysis method for grounded theory generation. Insights developed from exploring a design researchers approach may benefit researchers from other disciplines engaged in 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
Cites
Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/bf00988593 · Cited by 11,133
Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects
Shenton, A. K. (2004) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-2004-22201 · Cited by 9,748
Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis
Brink, E., Dellve, L., Hallberg, U., Abrahamsson, K. H., Klingberg, G., & Wentz, K. (2006) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being · doi:10.3402/qhw.v1i3.4932 · Cited by 6,862
Neufeld, A., & Ryan, A. G. (1988) · Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation · doi:10.3138/cjpe.3.006 · Cited by 5,913
Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018) · European Journal of General Practice · doi:10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092 · Cited by 3,217
From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not
Suddaby, R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083020 · Cited by 2,859 · cited 4×
“…models of scientific research where the researcher maintains a degree of separation from the object of enquiry, in this interpretative model, “the researcher is considered to be an active element of the research process, and the act of research has a creative component” (Suddaby, 2006, p. 638).”
InfluentialInternational Journal of Design
(2021) · International Journal of Design · doi:10.34010/injudes · Cited by 1,614
Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide
Bryan, R. R. (2011) · Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly · doi:10.1123/apaq.28.3.277 · Cited by 1,317
Design Research: Methods and Perspectives
Laurel, B. (2003) · The MIT Press eBooks · Cited by 572
A-Z of qualitative research in healthcare
Holloway, I. (2008) · Wiley-Blackwell eBooks · Cited by 272
Cited by
Nevedal, A. L., Reardon, C. M., Opra Widerquist, M. A., Jackson, G. L., Cutrona, S. L., White, B. S., & Damschroder, L. J. (2021) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01111-5 · Cited by 708
Xu, W., & Zammit, K. (2020) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406920918810 · Cited by 634
“It was our reflexivity and prolonged engagement with data and analytic process that led to a thicker description of this particular practitioner inquiry, contributing to transferability and dependability as criteria for evaluating qualitative studies (Maher et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMethodCogan, N., Craig, A., Milligan, L., McCluskey, R., Burns, T., Ptak, W., Kirk, A., Graf, C., Goodman, J., & De Kock, J. (2024) · European Journal of Psychotraumatology · doi:10.1080/20008066.2024.2395113 · Cited by 29
What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study
Lovegrove, C. J., & Bannigan, K. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249390 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., & de Eyto, A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-07-10
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2846140123
- Cited by
- 632
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 111.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Ensuring Rigor in Qualitative Data Analysis: A Design Research Approach to Coding Combining NVivo With Traditional Material Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1609406918786362
- The paper
- Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., & de Eyto, A. (2018). Ensuring Rigor in Qualitative Data Analysis: A Design Research Approach to Coding Combining NVivo With Traditional Material Methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918786362
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.