Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Analysis Guidance
Review and guidance while you code, build themes and join the strands, with an audit trail your examiner can follow.
Qualitative data are easy to collect, but analysing them well is hard. Twenty interviews will give you hundreds of pages of transcript. Mostly the first attempt becomes a list of topics (“Theme 1: Challenges. Theme 2: Benefits”) with a few quotes under each. In their report the examiner will just mark these “topic summaries”, not themes. In the viva they ask how the codes got built and why these themes came and not others. Then they want to see how a reader can follow the route from raw data till the conclusions.
We support scholars doing interview, focus-group, open-ended survey or document analysis, and also those mixing qualitative and quantitative strands in a mixed-methods design. First you pick an approach that suits your question. It may be reflexive thematic analysis as per Braun and Clarke, a codebook or framework approach, content analysis or another one. Then you build a coding framework and work in NVivo, ATLAS.ti or MAXQDA, and develop themes that actually say something. In a mixed-methods study we help you join the strands, so it does not read like two studies stapled together.
We will not write your interpretation for you, because in qualitative work that part has to be your own reading. Qualitative analysis is the researcher’s judgement, and your examiner will want to hear you reason about your own data. So we work along with you. We go through your codes, question the themes that look weak and help you keep audit trail that shows how you reached each point.
Quick answers
- What help do I get with qualitative or mixed-methods data?
We help you pick an approach and show you how to prepare and anonymise the transcripts. We set up the NVivo, ATLAS.ti or MAXQDA project together with you, and you draft the codebook. Then you get a review of your coding and themes, and guidance on joining the qualitative and quantitative strands. An audit trail of codebook versions, memos and theme maps is kept from start to end.
- How long does qualitative analysis take?
For 15 to 30 interviews, preparing the transcripts takes 1–3 weeks. Your coding with our review takes 3–8 weeks, mostly your own reading time. Then theme development review needs 2–3 weeks.
- Do you do the coding or develop the themes for me?
No. In qualitative research the interpretation itself is the analysis, so you do the coding and develop the themes. Our part is to review them, challenge the weak ones and help you put the route on record. Our ethics policy has more on this.
- Can you handle interviews in Tamil or other Indian languages?
Yes, we can arrange transcription and translation for several Indian languages, quoted as a separate line. Mention the languages in the consultation. We will discuss about it and then confirm what we can support.
- How do I start?
Send us a sample transcript, your research questions and your planned approach for a free consultation. We then give one fixed price in writing for the stages you choose, and the same scope fixes the number of review rounds.
Scope
What’s included
Every stage can be taken separately. If your coding is already done, you may need only the theme development review or the mixed-methods integration stage.
Approach and analysis plan
Picking a qualitative approach that matches your question and your philosophical position. It can be reflexive thematic analysis, framework analysis, content analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis or grounded theory. Then writing the plan your methods chapter will describe.
Transcript preparation
We agree the transcription rules with you and show you how to take out names and identifying details. Translated transcripts are checked against the original where interviews were in another language. Then you import everything into your software.
Coding framework and software set-up
We set up the NVivo, ATLAS.ti or MAXQDA project together with you, arranged by case and attribute. You draft the codebook with definitions and examples, and we comment on it. While you code we stay in touch and review a sample of your coding.
Theme development review
We go through your codes with you while you build themes, each with a central organising idea. You test them against the data set, then name and define them. Your thematic maps show how they connect, and we question any link that looks thin.
Mixed-methods integration
Guidance on joining the qualitative and quantitative strands as your design needs (convergent, explanatory sequential or exploratory sequential). You prepare joint displays and write meta-inferences about where the strands agree, expand or conflict, and we review them.
Quality
How quality is verified
These are the checks every piece of work goes through before it reaches you.
Audit trail kept throughout
Codebook versions, memos, theme maps and reasons for merging, splitting or dropping codes are dated and saved. Then anyone can trace how a transcript led to a finding. Dependability and confirmability are normally judged from this record.
Themes tested against the whole data set
Every candidate theme gets checked for coherence, first against its own coded extracts and then against the full data set. If a theme is really only a topic summary, we flag it.
Intercoder agreement only where it fits
In codebook and coding-reliability approaches we guide you on double-coding a sample with a second coder, mostly a colleague, and on reporting the agreement. That measure does not suit the assumptions of reflexive thematic analysis. There we use reflexive memos and talk through other readings of the data, and help you explain why.
Quotes checked against transcripts
Each quotation in your findings is matched with the transcript for accuracy and context. Anonymity is checked also, since a job title plus a location can identify a participant.
Reviewer familiar with your approach
Your reviewer has used your chosen approach in research, so the method is applied on its own terms and not as a generic template.
Time
Realistic timelines
Qualitative analysis is slow work. Reading the data many times over is part of the method itself. The ranges below are for a normal PhD data set of 15 to 30 interviews.
| Stage | Typical time | What it depends on |
|---|---|---|
| Approach and analysis plan | 3–5 working days | How far your research questions are finalised |
| Transcript preparation | 1–3 weeks | How many recordings there are, how long they run and whether translation is needed |
| Coding framework and software set-up | 1–2 weeks | Size of the data set, and whether the coding is inductive or deductive |
| Your coding, with review | 3–8 weeks | Mostly depends on your own time, and we review in rounds |
| Theme development review | 2–3 weeks | Number of review rounds with you |
| Mixed-methods integration | 1–3 weeks | Type of design, and how ready both strands are |
Method
Reflexive thematic analysis, briefly
Among Indian PhD theses we see, thematic analysis is the approach used most. It is also the one that gets described wrongly most of the time.
The 2006 paper of Braun and Clarke laid down six phases. First you get familiar with the data. Then you generate initial codes and search for themes. After that you review the themes, define and name them, and finally write the report. Later the authors started calling it reflexive thematic analysis, to show that the researcher’s interpretation is central. Coding is organic and not fixed in advance, and the phases loop back on each other.
Examiners many times comment that the methods chapter cite Braun and Clarke but then describe a different method, like a fixed codebook used by several coders with a kappa statistic. That method can be perfectly fine. But it is a codebook or coding-reliability approach, so you should call it by that name and justify it as that. We help you check that your methods chapter names the method you truly followed.
Integration in mixed methods
In mixed-methods theses the most common problem is that the two strands never come together. You get a statistics chapter, an interview chapter and a discussion that mentions both. For integration, decide at the planning stage itself where the two strands will meet. Sometimes interviews build the survey. Some studies use them to explain an unexpected quantitative result, or both run side by side and get compared. Then show that link clearly, for example in a joint display keeping survey results and themes side by side with your inference on each.
Trustworthiness
Usually qualitative work is not judged on validity and reliability in the statistical sense. Instead examiners look for credibility and transferability, and also dependability and confirmability. You meet them in practice through thick description, reflexive memos, an audit trail and, where it suits the study, member checking.
If you also have a quantitative strand in a mixed-methods study, look at statistical analysis in SPSS, R, AMOS and SmartPLS. In case your interview guide or sampling is still not ready, better to begin with research methodology consulting.
Pricing
How pricing works
We give the quote only after we see a sample transcript, your research questions and the approach you intend to use. The reason is simple. A study with 12 short interviews is a very different amount of work from one with 40 long focus groups in two languages. After that the price will not go up, it stays fixed for the stages you choose. We put it in writing and you say yes to it first, only then any work starts.
Transcription and translation charge, if any, we show on one more line below.
What the quote depends on
- How many interviews, focus groups or documents there are, and how long each one is
- Whether you need transcription or translation
- The analytic approach and the software
- Whether it is a mixed-methods study
- How many review rounds you want
Every quote includes
- A written scope listing exactly what will be delivered
- A fixed price agreed before any payment
- Payment in stages, tied to delivery
- Revision rounds stated in the scope
Process
How it works
Free consultation
A call or message with a specialist in your subject. We review your material and say plainly whether we are the right fit.
Written scope and quote
You get a written scope, a timeline and a fixed price. Work and payment begin once you agree to it.
Staged delivery
Work arrives in stages you review, each with a similarity report where text is involved. You pay stage by stage.
Revisions and hand-over
Revision rounds are included. At the end you get the final files, and an explanation of anything you’ll need to defend.
Keep reading
Guides and related services
Thematic analysis, step by step
Braun and Clarke’s phases, from coding to themes to write-up, with common mistakes.
Research Methodology Consulting
Design, sampling, instruments and analysis plan checked before you collect data, while changes are still easy.
Statistics Training and Analysis Review (SPSS, R, AMOS, SmartPLS)
Learn the right tests on your own data, run them yourself, and get your output and interpretation checked.
Writing a research gap statement
The kinds of gap, a sentence pattern that works, and weak-versus-strong examples.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Can you help me set up my NVivo or ATLAS.ti project?
Yes. We set up the project together with you on a call, with cases, attributes and the first structure of your codebook. After that the coding and the themes remain your work. We look through your coding in rounds, push back on weak themes and help you document the process, so at the viva you can explain every step.
Do I need NVivo, or can I code in Word or Excel?
Coding by hand is perfectly acceptable, and some researchers like it more. With a bigger data set, software such as NVivo, ATLAS.ti or MAXQDA becomes useful for pulling up coded extracts and keeping the audit trail. The software does not analyse anything. It just organise your work.
Should I report Cohen’s kappa for my thematic analysis?
Here the answer changes with the approach you followed. In codebook and coding-reliability approaches, reporting intercoder agreement can be appropriate. Braun and Clarke argue it does not fit reflexive thematic analysis, since there is no one “correct” coding for coders to agree on. We help you choose the option that matches your method and justify it.
How many interviews do I need?
Nobody can give one number for all studies. It depends on the approach, how varied your participants are and how much each interview adds. Many scholars are writing “we reached saturation”, but the word is used in more than one way in the books. Your justification should suit your method, and we can help you argue it openly.
My interviews are in Tamil (or another language). Can you handle that?
Transcription and translation can be arranged by us for several Indian languages. Get somebody to read the English extracts with the original audio once, some meaning goes missing in translation. Tell us the languages during the consultation, and we will confirm what support is possible.
What if the examiner asks how I arrived at a theme?
Show your audit trail. It has the codes that went into the theme, the memos where you noted why they belong together and the older versions of your thematic map. We help you maintain this record all through the work, so you are not trying to rebuild it at the end.
How do you protect participants’ confidentiality?
The transcripts are anonymised before they reach us, or immediately after. Only the people reviewing your work have access to them. After hand-over we delete the files if you ask. Whatever data-handling conditions your ethics committee has set, we follow them, and if you want an NDA we will sign one.
Talk it through with a specialist for free
Send us where you are and what you need. We’ll reply within one working day with clear advice, a written scope and a fixed quote. No obligation.
Book a free consultation