Advertisement

Inductive Coding

  • Yanto Chandra
  • Liang Shang
Chapter

Abstract

The most important function of any CAQDAS platform including RQDA is the coding function. Coding assigns a meaning to a small body of text (e.g., a specific word or lexical item, a sentence, a phrase or paragraph) using a label (usually one to a few words, such as Used_digital_technology or Formed_a_peer_support_group) that best represents the text. RQDA allows inductive and deductive coding, and its operation is intuitive. Our focus here is consistent with the Gioia approach to inductive coding. In RQDA, coding is quite simple and intuitive. This chapter discusses the inductive coding process in qualitative research and how to do so in RQDA. First, we briefly introduce the concepts of inductive and deductive coding and how they differ. Then we provide detailed instructions on the inductive coding process in RQDA by analyzing the data from our sample project, SI Strategies and Impacts in the Healthcare Sector, as an illustration.

Keywords

Inductive coding Deductive coding Code labels Codes First-order codes 

References

  1. Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19(6), 418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Scheunemann, L. P., Cunningham, T. V., Arnold, R. M., Buddadhumaruk, P., & White, D. B. (2015). How clinicians discuss critically ill patients’ preferences and values with surrogates: An empirical analysis. Critical Care Medicine, 43(4), 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Verhees, F. J., & Meulenberg, M. T. (2004). Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation, and performance in small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 134–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yanto Chandra
    • 1
  • Liang Shang
    • 2
  1. 1.The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongHong Kong
  2. 2.City University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations