Understanding and explaining how qualitative research has been analysed is vital to ensuring good quality qualitative research. The process of analysis can often be time
consuming and hard work. Sufficient time should be allocated to ensure that thorough analysis is carried out by the researcher (or research team).

Keeping clear notes of how analysis has been undertaken, and why different steps were taken, can really help to improve readers’ comprehension and insights.
This session focuses on the framework approach; but it is important to note that other types of qualitative analysis exist and are often used. The framework approach
is often the most useful approach when analysing qualitative data as a team.

Overall the learning objectives for users of this session are to:

  • Discuss basic principles of analysis in qualitative research
  • Identify the main steps in analysis using the ‘framework’ approach
  • Develop and apply a framework for analysing qualitative data
  • Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using computer programmes for qualitative analysis

You can download the powerpoint here.


Download additional resources and templates:

Chart sample

Transcript template

Transcription feedback form

Transcription SOP

 

 

Recommended reading:

Gale, Nicola K., et al. (2013) "Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research." BMC medical research methodology 13.1: 117.

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. (2000) Analysing qualitative data. BMJ; 320(7227):114-116.

Smith, Joanna, and Jill Firth. "Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach."Nurse researcher 18.2 (2011): 52-62.

Bryman, A. and R. Burgess, eds. Analysing Qualitative Data. ed. B. Alan and B. Robert. 1994, Routledge: London

Pope, C., S. Ziebland, and N. Mays, Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. Bmj, 2000. 320(7227): p. 114-6.

Gale, N.K., et al., Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC medical research methodology, 2013. 13(1): p. 117.