Different Approaches to Coding

Author(s): Graham R. Gibbs

Source: Sociological Methodology, Vol. 42 (August 2012), pp. 82-84
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23409343
Accessed: 27-04-2015 18:42 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological
Methodology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:42:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Symposium:

A.A

Commentary

Different

Sociological Methodology
Volume 42, 82-84
) American Sociological Association 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0081 175012460853

to

Approaches

Coding

http://sm.sagepub.com

(DSAGE

Graham

R. Gibbs1

I will

here

focus

volume,

on

the

core

the

2012:4376)namely,
three

using

nodes

and

discussed

example

counts
For

an attribute.1

by White,
from

arising

it demonstrates

me,

and

Judd,
a matrix

Poliandri

(this

in NVivo

search

of the differences

some

in logic between a typical quantitative approach and a typical qualitative one, which
must

be taken

into

account

in mixed

methods

research.

The initial output from NVivo is shown in Table 3 of their paper. The rows repre
sent

done

coding

to

Both."

"Supports

three

subnodes,

TMF,"

"Supports

the lines,

between

Reading

it looks

started

by iden

tifying a section of the interview where respondents talked about "women's

erations

to have

the decision

concerning

a first child"

(p.

and

58)

and

SDT,"

"Supports

as if the authors

then

consid

within

that text

identified some subtypes of answer. I think the authors treated this as if it were the
tegories

be

may
But

there

would

be

and

each

ture of the last

as

either

variable

are two

There

about

"women's

so

that

allow

might
for each

possible

interviews

considerations

case

What

answers,

has

just

Such

subca

one,

unique

and

answers

in that case

or a variable

answer

possible

for each
3 is a mix

we

have

in Table

so there

need

to be three

it is entirely
concerning

a questionnaire.

each

multiple

of answers.

combination

possible

two.

researchers

one

on

question

exclusive

mutually

studies

in unstructured

However,
sage

treated

in some

value.

answer

to an open-ended

of answers

categorization

possible

the

text

to find

decision

to have

nodes.

in the pas

a first child"

which cannot be coded with any of the three subnodes and/or to find text elsewhere
in the interview that can be coded at one or more of the subnodes. Indeed, as becomes
clear

later

in the paper,

such

considerations

were

not expressed

in one

only

place

but

occurred at different points in the interview. So, in addition to the possibility that
some
both
place

text

is coded

"Supports
both

is coded

theories

as

as

Both."

Both"

"Supports

in the same
"Supports
In such

there

passage,
TMF"
cases

and

where

the respondent

might

also

text

this respondent

be

in another
would

cases
place
also

expresses
where

be

as

support

some

text

"Supports

someone

who

theories.

'University of Huddersfield
Author:
Corresponding
Graham R. Gibbs, University of Huddersfield
Email: g.r.gibbs@hud.ac.uk

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:42:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

for

in one

SDT"
supports

or

Gibbs

83

With these differences in coding approach, it is not surprising, as the authors

rightly suggest, that the output in Table 3 from NVivo does not tell us anything about
the denominator/base
do

leagues

so further

numbers,

this by exporting

data

work

is needed

to see

program.

In some

to a statistical

this.

White

and

this

cases

col
be

may

the easiest approach, but, in fact, the work can be done in NVivo using what Richards
(1999) calls, "coding on." This involves doing a query in NVivo and then assigning
the resulting retrieved text to a new node (or an existing one if appropriate). By doing

queries based on Boolean combinations of nodes (AND and NOT) and the non
Boolean operator CO-OCCURENCE,
it is possible to create new codes that when

used

in a matrix

search

and

the number

showing

of sources

coded

will

the

produce

figures in Table 5.
Table 5 is initially surprising. It is clear that by including respondents who men
tion

both

considerations

in the interview

anywhere

as

Both"

"Supports

the numbers

in these categories have gone up from 11 and 19 to 16 and 33 for parity 1 and 0
But

respectively.
a mystery.

I can

why

the numbers

only

assume

in the other

that in Table

categories

5 the number

have

down

gone

of Parity

0 who

is more

of

"Supports

TMT"

has gone down from 42 to 21 because all those who also had text coded as
"Supports SDT" or "Supports Both" somewhere else in their interview have been
excluded.
The table below shows the differentallocations for Tables 3 and 5, where X indi
cates

the case

(source

document)

has

some

text that

is coded

with

this

node

at some

place.

Sup. TMF

Sup. SDT

Sup.

Both

Table

X
X

Table

Sup. TMF
Sup. SDT

X
X

Sup. TMF
Sup. SDT

Sup. TMF, Sup. SDT

Sup. TMF, Sup. SDT,

Sup. Both
Sup. Both

Sup. Both

Sup. SDT, Sup. Both

Sup. Both

Sup. Both
Sup. Both

Sup. TMF, Sup. Both

Sup. Both

Missing

Supports

neither

What is missing from this table and from the authors' account is any mention of
respondents' considerations concerning the decision to have a first child that could
not be coded as "Supports TMF" or "Supports SDT." This highlights a second dif
ference in the logics of qualitative and quantitative approaches, which is the ability
to be

exploratory,

something

that

is rather

underplayed

in the authors'

discussion

of

sampling. A key strengthof the qualitative approach, especially as promoted by sup

porters
cover

of grounded
new

ideas,

theory,
codes,

is that

or concepts

in the

process

(e.g.,

Glaser

of coding
and

Strauss

the

researcher

1967).

In the

can
case

dis
of

this study it might be women's discussion that fits in neither with TMT nor SDT.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:42:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84

SociologicalMethodology 42

This is a case of not supporting eitherwhat the authors have labeled as missing
but it is in fact a positive giving of reasons.
I certainly agree with the conclusion reached by White and colleagues that there
is scope for a lot more use of QDAS functions to undertake mixed-methods research.
The conversion of qualitative coding into quantitative variables is clearly one of
but it needs

them,

to be

done

with

a great

deal

of care

to take

into

account

the differ

ent logics of coding that are used.

Note
1.

it looks,

Actually

two more nodes

as the coding

by the column

judging

for the columns

in Table

heading

rather than two values

3, as if the authors

have

used

of an attribute. Either is fine as long

is done comprehensively.

References
B.

Glaser,

G.

and

L. 1999.

Richards,
White,

M.,

Social

A.

L.

Research.

Qualitative
M.

D.

Using

NVivo

Judd, and

Scientists

Multimethod

Strauss.

Learn

1967.
IL:

Chicago,

The Discovery

in Qualitative

S. Poliandri.

Research.

London:

"Illumination

2012,

by Employing

Qualitative

Sociological

Methodology

Designs?"

of Grounded

Theory:

Strategies

for

Aldine.

Data

Sage.
with a Dim

Analysis

Bulb?

What

Do

in the Service

Software

of

42:4376.

Bio
Graham

R. Gibbs

in England.
the use
books
related

His

Fellow

in Social

interests

Research

include

Methods

at the University

the use of software

in qualitative

of Huddersfield
data analysis

and

of technology
on qualitative

in teaching
and learning in higher education.
He is the author of two
data analysis
and has led and participated
in several
funded projects
to the use of technology
in the social sciences
and their teaching. He is currently work

ing on the EU
have

is a Reader

research

a parent

funded

COPING

in prison.

He

was

project,
made

which
a UK

is examining

Higher

Education

the experience
Academy

of children
National

in 2006.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:42:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

who

Teaching