Epistemic Network Analysis for Semi-structured Interviews and Other Continuous Narratives: Challenges and Insights

  • Szilvia ZörgőEmail author
  • Gjalt-Jorn Ygram Peters
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1112)


Applying Quantitative Ethnography (QE) techniques to continuous narratives in an inquiry where manual segmentation with a multitude of codes is preferred poses several challenges. In order to address these issues, we developed the Reproducible Open Coding Kit – convention, open source software, and interface – that eases manual coding, enables researchers to reproduce the coding process, compare results, and collaborate. The ROCK can also be employed to prepare data for Epistemic Network Analysis software. Our paper elaborates the challenges we encountered and the insights we gained while conducting a research project on decision-making regarding therapy choice among patients in Budapest, Hungary. Our aim is to broaden the usage of QE, while facilitating Open Science principles and transparency.


Epistemic Network Analysis Semi-structured interviews Methodology 



The authors would like to acknowledge the support of ÚNKP-18-3-III New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities, Hungary. We would also like to thank Brendan Eagan for his valuable insights throughout the planning and implementation phases of this research. Lastly, we are grateful to research assistants Anna Geröly, Anna Jeney, and Krisztina Veres for their rigorous work.


  1. 1.
    Shaffer, D.: Epistemic network analysis: understanding learning by using big data for thick description. In: Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Goldman, S.R., Reimann, P. (eds.) International Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 520–531. Routledge, New York (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frass, M., Strassl, R., Friehs, H., Müllner, M., Kundi, M., Kaye, A.: Use and acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine among the general population and medical personnel: a systematic review. Ochsner J 12, 45–56 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomas, K., Nicholl, J., Coleman, P.: Use and expenditure on complementary medicine in England: a population based survey. Complement. Ther. Med. 9, 2–11 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tindle, H., Davis, R., Phillips, R., Eisenberg, D.: Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern. Ther. Health Med. 11, 42–49 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arthur, K., Belliard, J., Hardin, S., Knecht, K., Chen, C., Montgomery, S.: Practices, attitudes, and beliefs associated with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients. Integr. Cancer Ther. 11, 232–242 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eardley, S., et al.: A systematic literature review of complementary and alternative medicine prevalence in EU. Forsch Komplementmed. 19(Suppl 2), 18–28 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris, P.: Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by the general population: a systematic review and update. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 66, 924–939 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ernst, E.: Prevalence of use of complementary/alternative medicine: a systematic review. Bull. World Health Organ. 78, 258–266 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Altman, D.: Problems in dichotomizing continuous variables. Am. J. Epidemiol. 15, 442–445 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henrich, J., Heine, S., Norenzayan, A.: The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faith, J., Thorburn, S., Tippens, K.: Examining CAM use disclosure using the behavioral model of health services use. Complement. Ther. Med. 21, 501–508 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomson, P., Jones, J., Browne, M., Leslie, S.: Psychosocial factors that predict why people use complementary and alternative medicine and continue with its use: a population based study. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 20, 302–310 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stratton, T., McGivern-Snofsky, J.: Toward a sociological understanding of complementary and alternative medicine use. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 14, 777–783 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zörgő, S., Olivas Hernández, O.: Patient journeys of nonintegration in hungary: a qualitative study of possible reasons for considering medical modalities as mutually exclusive. Integr. Cancer Ther. 17, 1270–1284 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zörgő, S., Purebl, G., Zana, Á.: A qualitative study of culturally embedded factors in complementary and alternative medicine use. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 18, 25 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Astin, J.: Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA 279, 1548–1553 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peters, G., Zörgő, S.: Introduction to the Reproducible Open Coding Kit (ROCK) (2019). Psyarxiv. doi:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Behavioural SciencesSemmelweis UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Faculty of Psychology and Education ScienceOpen UniversityHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations