Coding

from Key Concepts in Ethnography

View article on Credo

Coding is a euphemism for the sorting and labelling which is part of the process of analysis.

Outline: Coding as part of the ongoing process of interpretive analysis. First steps, close exploration of
data, and initial line by line coding. Memo-writing as initial stages of writing up. Focused coding and
focused memos. Keeping good records. How to find some examples of coding in practice.

THE PURPOSE OF CODING

Coding is analysis. To review a set of field notes, transcribed or synthesized, and to dissect them
meaningfully, while keeping the relations between the parts intact, is the stuff of analysis. (Miles and
Huberman, 1994: 56)

Coding is a euphemism for the sorting and labelling which is part of the process of analysis. It involves
close exploration of collected data and assigning it codes, which may be names, categories, concepts,
theoretical ideas or classes. It also involves writing memos or thoughts and ideas, associated with given
codes, elaborating and linking codes, and thinking about what they mean in the context of a broader
argument or story. It is the first step in analysis. In ethnographic analysis the ethnographer will normally
have started to make some sense of it all as she went along. She will have thought about the research
questions, decided who to ask what questions, and where to do the next piece of participant
observation or interview, will have started to pull together disparate threads and pursued theoretically
informed leads in the pursuit of an answer to the initial puzzle. By the time she reaches the analysis
phase, she should have some idea of what it is she wants to convey, what story will be told, what
pictures painted, and for which audiences.

Nevertheless, there comes a time when something has to be done with all the data collected, and most
ethnographers find this overwhelming and daunting. One of the first stages of analysis involves moving
from a chronological order to another kind of order. Fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and other kinds
of data have been collected chronologically, as research progressed, but it is unlikely that they will be
presented in this way. Analysis therefore involves some kind of sorting and sorted sections need
coding or labelling. Data are coded into categories that suit the ethnographer's requirements, and
these can be thematic or descriptive or both. How this is achieved involves a creative, reflexive
(ref lexivity) and interpretive (interpretivism) interaction between the researcher, the data, the
literature, theoretical ideas that framed the research as well as those that emerge from close analysis
of the data, and the researcher's feelings, emotions, experiences, and memory. There is no formula for
coding ethnographic data (although, increasingly, researchers are trying to develop prescriptive
techniques such as the Framework Approach described by Ritchie, et al. 2003).

It is crucial to consider the purpose of coding. It is not so that the data can be minutely explored in
search of instances of phenomena; it does not amount to counting occurrences or utterances. Data
were collected by someone who decided what to write down and when, how often to note something,

https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuketh/coding/0
and when to ignore it. Fieldnotes are not direct records of events and interview transcripts are not all
there was to say on a subject. Something that happened numerous times may never have been
recorded, while something else that happened a few times was written about at length. This does not
make the latter more important. Using a computer to count how many words are said on a certain topic
or how many times something happened will simply count those things the ethnographer thought
relevant to note or to code into categories as the data were sorted. Coding is not content analysis.

READING
On the other hand, when coding, the ethnographer examines the data minutely, sometimes word by
word and line by line, and in the process all sorts of patterns emerge. We might notice, for example, that
every time one topic is discussed the subject gets subtly changed by the respondent; or that each time
two people meet, they use one of a possible range of greetings that may reveal something about their
relationship. This might only come out with close examination of transcripts and fieldnotes. As Ian Dey
(1993) suggests, we seek patterns in data like putting together building blocks: moving, aligning, re-
aligning, and building until patterns emerge that make some sense.

The first step then is to closely explore, wade in, minutely examine, and ask questions about the data. It
will be useful to go back to the initial research question and remember what that was and how it
developed as research progressed. Robert Emerson and colleagues (1995) recommend that this close
analysis be undertaken line by line, at least initially and on a range of data, until it seems nothing new is
emerging. It is important, also, that the data are viewed at this stage as a whole, so that the
ethnographer can begin to make links across categories, between events, and among individuals.
However, it should also be remembered that certain things will never have been recorded, and that
memory remains a powerful research tool. The emotions and experiences that accompany the
observation of an event - the smells, the sounds, the background noise, emotions, participants'
comments, the background whispers, the misunderstandings that came clear later - none of these may
be recorded and yet any or all may prove to be illuminating at this stage of analysis.

OPEN CODING AND OPEN MEMOS

This first examination (whether it occurs in the field or later) will generate any number of ideas and
thoughts, flashes of inspiration, questions, doubts, and puzzles. These should be openly coded and
then expanded with the use of memos. Open coding and writing open memos means jotting down labels
(in the margins, using a computer, highlighting, or however) and making notes about them. The labels
are names or phrases that label phenomena. The memos are notes by and for the ethnographer
expanding on these labels: where they came from, what they might mean, what the ethnographer was
thinking when she decided to use a given code. Nothing should be chopped up and divorced from its
context. In other words, paragraphs or events should be assigned to a certain category without
removing them from the rest of the fieldnotes, interview transcripts and data that were collected
simultaneously. Most computer sof tware programs allow this, but it can also be achieved by hand
using multiple photocopies or coloured pens.

Open coding is essentially inductive (inductive and deductive), which means that the ethnographer is
open to surprises, to discovering new ideas or fresh insights, which may even challenge the initial
research focus, or take the ethnographer in new directions. It may yield expected and unexpected
analytic categories. However, it is not naively inductive, but iterative-inductive. That is to say, what codes
emerge will depend to some extent on the ethnographer's research interests, reading, and
theoretical/epistemological framework. Essentially we are interpreting the data, relating them to wider

https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuketh/coding/0
frameworks and broader processes (Ezzy, 2002). Open coding and memo-writing involve some level of
generalisation or thinking out of the specific instance to a more general theme or concepts, such as
'making friends' or 'hiding emotions'. Memos are the opportunity to work out ideas in more depth. It is
where the ethnographer begins to move from data and labels and link to other ideas, theories, memory,
and other data. Since the process of open coding can be overwhelming at times, generating unlimited,
apparently unrelated themes, Emerson et al. (1995) advise beginning with systematic open coding on
some of the data, and then moving on to more focused coding, before coming back to further phases of
open coding for brief periods on new sections of the data. This ensures a balance between inductive
and deductive theorising and is similar to the techniques described by grounded theory.

FOCUSED CODING AND FOCUSED MEMOS

The ethnographer rarely writes up everything that emerges from the data, but determines themes to
work up into chapters or papers. For this reason, the same data can be coded very differently by
different people and for different purposes. Open coding leads to focused coding and focused memos
where the same ideas, categories, and/or insights are explored in more depth and links made between
them, with a specific analytical argument (or story or picture) increasingly in mind. Themes will emerge
that the ethnographer will want to write about in more depth and this will lead to returning to the data
and re-coding in the light of these more focused themes. Focused memos (or what Emerson et al., 1995,
term 'integrative memos') really begin to elaborate ideas and focus themes, making links between
disparate codes and sets of ideas. Gradually, analysis leads to reduced sets of codes and memos and
longer written pieces, first as an aid to analysis and, eventually, to present to an audience.

DATA COLLECTION FOR CODING

Given the demands of coding as described above, it is essential to keep good records that can be
easily put into a computer or sorted and coded by hand. It is more common to regret not having
collected a certain piece of information or noted down some crucial details than to regret having too
much data. Ethnographers who bear the needs of analysis in mind as they conduct research collect data
in a directed way, coding and contextualising as they go along. This can include audio and video tape,
photographs, texts of myths, events, music, gossip, or whatever else seemed important at the time (see
f ieldnotes).

EXAMPLES OF CODING IN PRACTICE

I found the section on 'processing fieldnotes' in Emerson et al. (1995) invaluable for discussing the
concept of coding. Their chapter recognises the debt the authors owe to techniques used by grounded
theorists, but argues that grounded theorists tend to attempt to 'discover' theory. Kathy Charmaz (2006),
on the other hand, has more recently accepted the more constructive nature of the social world and
therefore of social theory, and acknowledges the role of the fieldworker at every stage of the research
process. Emerson et al. (1995), Charmaz (2006), and Miles and Huberman (1994) provide some concrete
examples of actual coding in practice which readers might find useful. However, in the end it is far better
to attempt this process in practice than to read (or write) about it, and it is crucial to consider it in relation
to all other stages of the fieldwork process, especially analysis.

See als o: analysis; computer software; generalisation; grounded theory: writing

REFERENCES
General

https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuketh/coding/0
General
Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide through Qualitative
Analysis. London: Sage.
Dey, I. (1993) Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Routledge.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I. and Shaw, L. L. (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Ezzy, D. (2002) Qualitative Analysis. Practice and Innovation. London: Routledge.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook.
London: Sage.
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L. and O'Connor, W. (2003) 'Carrying out qualitative analysis', in Ritchie, J.
and Lewis, J., (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage, pp. 219-62.

© Karen O'Reilly 2009

https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuketh/coding/0
APA
Coding. (2008). In K. O'Reilly, Key concepts in ethnography. London, UK: Sage UK. Retrieved from
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuketh/coding/0?institutionId=1872

Chicago
"Coding." In Key Concepts in Ethnography, by Karen O'Reilly. Sage UK, 2008.
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuketh/coding/0?institutionId=1872

Harvard
Coding. (2008). In K. O'Reilly, Key concepts in ethnography. [Online]. London: Sage UK. Available from:
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuketh/coding/0?institutionId=1872 [Accessed 7
April 2018].

MLA
"Coding." Key Concepts in Ethnography, Karen O'Reilly, Sage UK, 1st edition, 2008. Credo Reference,
https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuketh/coding/0?institutionId=1872. Accessed 07
Apr. 2018.

https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuketh/coding/0