Conducting Collaborative Qualitative Analysis Remotely

Abstract

There is a growing body of literature around digital research, specifically regarding data collection and how to pivot research designs to be more conducive to online and virtual research, but little in the way of how to analyze data remotely. In this article, we share firsthand experiences from a qualitative study utilizing Google apps, Zoom, and NVivo to organize data, establish coding protocols, document memos, develop codebooks, employ thematic analyses, and calculate intercoder reliability. We focus on practices and procedures that establish rigor and trustworthiness, facilitate researcher collaboration and collegiality, and increase gifted education researchers’ educational adaptability. Learning from our collective experiences conducting qualitative research remotely may be of interest to researchers and students with limited budgets and/or those who work remotely with collaborators within and across different institutions.

Keywords

academically gifted collaboration digital research listening middle grades qualitative research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennett

A. A.

Campion

E. D.

Keeler

K. R.

Keener

S. K.

(2021). Videoconference fatigue? Exploring changes in fatigue after videoconference meetings during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000906

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

(2007). Sorting the wheat from the chaff: What makes for good evidence of effectiveness in the literature in gifted education? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306317

Campbell

J. L.

Quincy

Osserman

Pedersen

O. K.

(2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge.

Corbin

Strauss

(2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE.

Gilson

C. M.

Sauder

A. E.

(2021). Gifted adolescent readers’ perceptions of how teachers should (or should not) listen during dialogic discourse. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(4), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211009856

Green

Mynhier

Banfill

Edwards

Kim

Desjardins

(2020). Preparing education for the crises of tomorrow: A framework for adaptability. International Review of Education, 66(5), 857–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09878-3

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). SAGE.

10.

Harry

Sturges

K. M.

Klingner

J. K.

(2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034002003

11.

Kobakhidze

M. N.

Hui

Chui

González

(2021). Research disruptions, new opportunities: Re-imagining qualitative interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211051576

12.

Levine

F. J.

Nasir

N. S.

Rios-Aguilar

Gildersleeve

R. E.

Rosich

K. J.

Bang

Bell

N. E.

Holsapple

M. A.

(2021). Voices from the field: The impact of COVID-19 on early career scholars and doctoral students. American Educational Research Association; Spencer Foundation. https://doi.org/10.3102/aera20211

13.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

14.

Newman

P. A.

Guta

Black

(2021). Ethical considerations for qualitative research methods during the COVID-19 pandemic and other emergency situations: Navigating the virtual field. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211047823

15.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.

16.

Peterson

J. S.

(2019). Presenting a qualitative study: A reviewer’s perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219844789

17.

QSR International. (2020). NVivo qualitative data analysis software. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

18.

Rahman

S. A.

Tuckerman

Vorley

Gherhes

(2021). Resilient research in the field: Insights and lessons from adapting qualitative research projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211016106

19.

Roberts

J. K.

Pavlakis

A. E.

Richards

M. P.

(2021). It’s more complicated than it seems: Virtual qualitative research in the COVID-19 era. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211002959

20.

Rolf

Campbell

Thompson

Argus

(2021). Australians’ experience of the COVID-19 pandemic: Advantages and challenges of scaling up qualitative research using large-scale rapid analysis and building research capacity across rural Australia. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211051937

21.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.

22.

Scott

C. W.

Medaugh

(2017). Axial coding. In Matthes

Davies

C. S.

Potter

R. F.

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1–2). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0012

23.

Tracy

S. J.

(2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.