Coding Techniques
The most common coding techniques are:
- In vivo coding
In vivo coding means to assign the text that is to be coded to a code, whose label is the text itself. While this is a very efficient method for coding, there might be theoretical consideration to use this option cautiously.1 - Free coding
Free coding allows you to assign any code to arbitrary sequences of data. - Contextual coding
After searching your data for certain text and/or codes, you might jump to your finds and code them in context. - Automatic coding
Most programs allow you to perform text and/or code searches and assign a code to the search results. Qualrus has no such in-built facility for the automatic coding of text searches, but its script language allows you to perform complex autocoding procedures. - Software-generated coding suggestions (Qualrus)
Qualrus uses some techniques borrowed from artificial intelligence to suggest codes. - Supercode (ATLAS.ti)
ATLAS.ti allows you to store search patterns in so-called "supercodes." This way, any new or changed data added to a project will be automatically coded through these codes. - Variables
Most CAQDAS allow to define variables, in which document-wide attributes (such as the gender of a person interviewed, or the edit oral desk for a newspaper article) can be stored. - Coding of multimedia
HyperRESEARCH, Qualrus and Atlas.TI also allow you to apply codes to sequences of certain video and audio files. - Annotation of codings
Most CAQDAS allow you to annotate your codes in a variety of ways. - Free Memos
Memos are not really codes but little bits of comments that can be attached to data or codes in a way that resembles Post-It™ notes on hardcopies.
All codes are usually stored in a codebook, which in some programs can be structured in a hierarchy and/or a network. Some programs also allow you to color codes to organize them.
| In vivo | Contextual | Automatic | Color of Coding Stripes | Codebook | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATLAS.ti 5.0 | yes | simple | very slow | random | flat codebook, but codes can be linked in a variety of ways |
| E6 | … | … | … | … | … |
| HyperRESEARCH 2.6 | no | windows are difficult to handle | yes, but sources are quite cumbersome to add (one source at a time) | none | flat |
| Kwalitan 5.09 | yes | simple | simple text only; invalid error messages | none | complex tree structure |
| MAXqda 2 | yes | windows are difficult to handle | quick and stable | five colors available | hierarchical |
| N6 | yes | simple | simple | none | hierarchical |
| NVivo 2 | yes | simple | very slow | no, and coding stripes slow the program considerably in large projects | hierarchical, different types of codes |
| QDA Miner 1.0.15 | no | straightforward | quick and stable | all Windows colors | Only two levels in hierarchy |
| Qualrus 2.0.4.0 | yes | cumbersome | requires use of an idiosyncratic script language | ? | cumbersome |
| TAMS 2.50b5 | … | … | … | … | … |
| Non-CAQDAS benchmark programs | |||||
| Textpack | … | … | … | … | … |
| TCAS | … | … | … | … | … |
- There are two reasons, why in vivo coding may be hazardous. From a theoretical point of view, it is imperative to "break" (Bourdieu, Passeron & Chamboredon 1991) with the communicative categories of everyday speech to analyze discourse effectively. From a practical standpoint, the ease with which in vivo codes are applied might lead to a coding/data fetish, which prompts the analyst to "Code everything." (Cisneros 2003: 306) Obviously, these hazards can be circumvented, if one stays aware of them.