Coding, the analytic task of assigning codes to nonnumeric data, is foundational to writing research. A rich discussion of methodological pluralism has established the foundational importance of systematicity in the task of coding, but less attention has been paid to the equally important commitment to language complexity. Addressing the interplay among a commitment to language complexity, the selection of tools, and the construction of workflow, this article offers a framework of analytic tasks in coding. Three general purpose coding tools are explored: Excel, MAXQDA, and Dedoose. This exploration suggests that how four aspects of analysis should be supported in order to manage language complexity: code restructuring, segmentation in advance of coding, use of a full coding scheme, and retrieval of full context by code. This analysis is intended to help writing researchers choose tools and design workflow to support coding work consistent with our commitment to language in its full complexity.
AngeliE. L. (2015). Review of the book Solving problems in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24, 113-116.
2.
AnsonC. M. (2008). The intelligent design of writing programs: Reliance on belief or a future of evidence. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 32, 11-36.
3.
BartonE. (2000). More methodological matters: Against negative argumentation. College Composition and Communication, 51(3), 399-416.
4.
BazermanC.PriorP. (2003). Introduction: The study of written text and writing. In BazermanC.PriorP. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 1-10). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BirdS.KleinE.LoperE. (2009). Learning to classify text. In Natural language processing with Python: Analyzing text with the Natural Language Toolkit (chap. 6). Retrieved from http://www.nltk.org/book/ch06.html
6.
BoettgerR. K.PalmerL. A. (2010). Quantitative content analysis: Its use in technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(4), 346-357, doi:10.1109/TPC.2010.2077450
7.
BourqueL. B. (2004). Coding. In Lewis-BeckM. S.BrymanA.Futing LiaoT. (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 132-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CharneyD. (1996). Empiricism is not a four-letter word. College Composition and Communication, 47(4), 567-593.
10.
GeislerC. (2004). Analyzing streams of language: Twelve steps to the systematic coding of text, talk, and other verbal data. New York, NY: Pearson/Longman.
11.
GeislerC. (2016a). Opening: Toward an integrated approach. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 417-424. doi:10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.05
12.
GeislerC. (2016b). Closing: Toward an integrated approach. Journal of Writing Research7(3), 511-526. doi:10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.09
13.
GrahamS. S.KimS. Y.DeVastoD. M.KeithW. (2015). Statistical genre analysis: Toward big data methodologies in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 70-104. doi:10.1080/10572252.2015.975955
14.
HashimovE. (2015). Review of the books Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook and Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 109-112. doi:10.1080/10572252.2015.975966
15.
HaswellR. H. (2005). NCTE/CCCC’s recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22(2), 198-223. doi:10.1177/0741088305275367
16.
HooverR. S.KoerberA. L. (2011). Using NVivo to answer the challenges of qualitative research in professional communication: Benefits and best practices tutorial. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54(1), 68-82. doi:10.1109/TPC.2009.2036896
17.
HowardR. M. (2014). Forum: Why this humanist codes. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(1), 75-81.
18.
HuckinT. (2004). Content analysis: What texts talk about. In BazermanC.PriorP. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 13-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
ImbrendaJ. P. (2016). The blackbird whistling or just after? Vygotsky’s tool and sign as an analytic for writing. Written Communication, 33(1), 68-91. doi:10.1177/0741088315614582
20.
KrippendorffK. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
KuhnD.HembergerL.KhaitV. (2015). Tracing the development of argumentative writing in a discourse-rich context. Written Communication, 33(1), 92-121. doi:10.1177/0741088315617157
PollachI. (2012). Taming textual data: The contribution of corpus linguistics to computer-aided text analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 263-287. doi:10.1177/1094428111417451
29.
PriorP.ThorneS. L. (2014). Research paradigms: Beyond product, process, and social activity. In JakobsE.PerrinD. (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp. 31-54). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
30.
ReadS.SwartsJ. (2015). Visualizing and tracing: Research methodologies for the study of networked, sociotechnical activity, otherwise known as knowledge work. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 14-44. doi:10.1080/10572252.2015.975961
31.
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, UK: Sage.
SilverC.LewinsA. (2017). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide. London, UK: Sage.
34.
SmagorinskyP. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389-411.
35.
SotiriadouP.BrouwersJ.LeT. A. (2014). Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: A comparison of NVivo and Leximancer. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(2), 218-234. doi:10.1080/11745398.2014.902292
36.
SpinuzziC. (2002). Toward integrating our research scope: A sociocultural field methodology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(1), 3-32. doi:10.1177/1050651902016001001
37.
SpinuzziC. (2013). Topsight: A guide to studying, diagnosing, and fixing information flow in organizations. Austin, TX: Createspace.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
