Directed Reading 8
Directed Reading 8
Directed Reading 8
net/publication/284143585
CITATIONS READS
77 4,427
1 author:
Meghan Cope
University of Vermont
29 PUBLICATIONS 838 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Meghan Cope on 29 February 2016.
Chapter Overview
This chapter defines coding, which is a process of identifying and
organizing themes in qualitative data, reviews different types of codes
and their uses, and discusses several ways to get started with coding in a
qualitative project. Specifically, a distinction is drawn between descriptive
codes, which are category labels, and analytic codes, which are thematic,
theoretical, or in some way emerge from the analysis. Borrowing from
the work of grounded theory’s Anselm Strauss, a basic four-point plan is
reviewed as a strategy to begin coding focused on looking for conditions,
interactions, strategies/tactics, and consequences. The building of a
‘codebook’ is also discussed, stressing the importance of looking critically
at the codes themselves, identifying ways in which they relate, minimizing
overlap between codes, and strengthening the analytical potential of
the coding structure. Finally, several related issues are covered, such
as coding with others, integrating coding and mapping, and viewing the
world from the perspective of coding.
Introduction
Geographers are increasingly engaged not only in doing qualitative research but
also in thinking and writing critically about methodologies, including the ways
that we evaluate, organize, and ‘make sense’ of our data through the coding
process (Cope 2003; Jackson 2001). Coding social data (for example, text, im-
ages, talk, interactions) is sometimes derided as tedious, but if you think of it as
a kind of detective work, it can be intriguing, exciting, and very valuable to the
research process.
The purposes of coding are partly data reduction(to help the researcher
get a handle on large amounts of data by distilling along key themes), partly
organization (to act as a ‘finding aid’ for researchers sorting through data), and
partly a substantive process of data exploration, analysis, and theory-building.
Further, different researchers use coding for different reasons depending on their
goals and epistemologies; sometimes coding is used in an exploratory, inductive
way such as in grounded theory in which the purpose is to generate theories from
empirical data, while other times coding is used to support a theory or hypothesis
in a more deductive manner. Several approaches are discussed here, with pointers
on how to organize and begin the coding aspect of a research project.
However, codes can also be too general and become cumbersome. Because much
of my children’s urban geography research is centred around issues of neighbour-
hood and community, I found that I needed to break each of them into more
specific codes, such as codes for the particular neighbourhoods the children refer
to, the use of both ‘neighbourhood’ and ‘community’ to mean ‘local’ (such as in
reports from the city newspaper), and the way that school curriculum materials
define ‘community’. This is a frequent characteristic of coding: an initial category
becomes overly broad and must be refined and partitioned into multiple codes.
Bear in mind that the opposite also occurs—some codes die a natural death
through lack of use. For instance, in my project I had expected the children, who
are for the most part in low-income families, to talk about a lack of money or not
being able to afford something they wanted. However, after two years in the pro-
ject, I have found little evidence of children discussing their own poverty (though
that absence is itself an interesting research question). While I will probably keep
a ‘low-income’ code for other purposes, its prevalence is much less than I antici-
pated in the materials generated by the children. As Miles and Huberman said,
‘some codes do not work; others decay. No field material fits them, or the way they
slice up the phenomenon is not the way the phenomenon appears empirically.
This issue calls for doing away with the code or changing its level’ (1994, 61).
So the first step is to make a list of what you think are the most important
themes upfront, with the understanding that some of them will be split into finer
specifics while others will remain largely unused. But how do you know what
is important? Anselm Strauss, one of the founders of grounded theory, had a
helpful system for beginning this awesome task (best represented in Strauss and
Corbin 1990). He suggested paying attention to four types of themes:
•• conditions
•• interactions among actors
•• strategies and tactics
•• consequences
girls’ interactions with peers were strongly implicated in the type and level of
their sexual activity. Thus, Thomas might have coded her interview transcripts
regarding peer factors by whether, how, and where girls engaged in sexual activity,
as well as whom they were influenced by or interacted with.
‘Strategies and tactics’2 is a little more complicated than Strauss’s first two types
of themes because it requires a deeper understanding of the things (events, actions,
statements) you observe and how they relate to broader phenomena and it suggests
a certain level of purposeful intent among the research subjects that may demand
additional inquiry on your part. For example, feminist geographers are often in-
terested in women’s survival or ‘livelihood’ strategies in different areas of the world
(see, for example, the special issue of Gender, Place and Culture, 2004, vol. 11, no.
2). Noting that women in certain economic contexts tend to use particular types
of financial survival tactics (for example, growing food products for sale in a local
market) can begin to illuminate broader economic, social, and political processes
that shape women’s options and actions, which is a valuable insight for geographic
research. Other types of strategies or tactics might involve career decisions, polit-
ical activism, housing choices, family negotiations, or even subversion.
Coding for strategies and tactics can be straightforward (and descriptive) in
instances when respondents say something like ‘I moved in with my mother so
that she could care for my baby while I finished job training’ or ‘I got involved
with a local group of residents to raise awareness of environmental contamina-
tion in our neighbourhood because I was concerned about property values.’ Note
the words ‘so’ and ‘because’ in these statements, which are good tip-offs that a
strategy or tactic is embedded in the text.
Other times, coding for strategies and tactics may be more subtle—and more
analytical—as when respondents do not explicitly state their reasons for certain
actions but a connection emerges through observation, review of interview text,
or other data. For instance, many geographers (for example, Blumen 2002; Cress-
well 1999; Flint 2001; Nagar 2000; Secor 2004) have paid attention to ways that
people engage in resistance against diverse forms of oppression, which may be seen
as strategies for empowerment, rights, or merely survival. Orna Blumen (2002,
133) took ‘dissatisfaction articulated in subtle terms’ by ultra-orthodox Jewish
women as small but significant indicators of the women’s resistance to their fam-
ilies’ economic circumstances and, more broadly, to the status and roles of women
in that community. For the women in Blumen’s study, then, referring to fatigue,
hoping their husbands would soon find paying work, and ‘minor, personal, non-
conformist remarks suggestive of ambivalence’ (2002, 140) could all be coded as
tactics of resistance, in part because Blumen—through careful qualitative work—
had sufficiently analyzed the broader context of the women’s lives and goals.
Similar to the above, ‘consequences’ is a slightly more complicated code. On
the surface, there are descriptive indicators for consequences, including terms
such as ‘then’, ‘because’, ‘as a result of’, and ‘due to’ that may be used in sub-
jects’ statements and can be good clues to consequences and as a first-run could
certainly be used in this way. Again, however, there are also more analytically
sophisticated ways of discovering and coding consequences that are dependent
on the unique empirical settings and events of each study. Some consequences
will be matters of time passing and actions taking place that result in a particular
outcome—the passage of a law, a change in rules or practices, and so on. How-
ever, other consequences are more subtle and personal, or they are not the result
of changes over time and therefore may be trickier to identify and code as such.
For example, when Anna Secor (2004) hears from young Kurdish women living
in Istanbul that they feel uncomfortable in some areas of the city, she might code
her focus group transcripts for the consequences of feeling out of place due to the
women’s identity as an oppressed minority in Turkey. Coding for ‘consequences’
of this kind requires sensitivity to both the subjects and their community context
but is potentially a rich source of analysis and insight if done with care.
As an example of what a sample of coded material looks like with both descrip-
tive and analytic codes, Box 14.1 demonstrates a small selection of field notes
from my project on children’s urban geographies along with codes, themes, and
notes. Even this fairly short piece of text reveals several relationships (friends,
bullies), tactics (ways of getting attention), and conditions (chaos, noise level)
that stimulated further examination in other project analysis. Additionally, sev-
eral analytic themes or questions are seen emerging here: the possible relation-
ship between gender and violent play, some children’s pride in perceived com-
munity membership (despite living in a blighted physical environment), and the
importance of play in defining what a neighbourhood is among the children.
Subsequent to the quilt project represented here and in combination with other
Children’s Urban Geographies Project data, I generated a theory of how children
define and ascribe meaning to the idea of ‘neighbourhood’ (Cope 2008); theory-
building, after all, is an important goal of most qualitative research.
Being in the world requires us to categorize, sort, prioritize, and interpret social
data in all of our interactions. Coding qualitative data is merely a formalization
of this process in order to apply it to research and to provide some structure as a
way of conveying our interpretations to others.
Key terms
abstracting descriptive code
analytic code grounded theory
caq-gis (computer-aided initial codes
qualitative geographical
information systems) interpretive codes
data reduction
Review Questions
1. What is the difference between descriptive and analytic codes, how do
they relate to one another, and what are their respective uses in coding
qualitative data?
2. Why does the author state that coding is analysis?
3. What are some potential benefits and potential problems with having
multiple people coding in a project?
4. In what ways do we ‘code’ events, processes, and other phenomena in
everyday life? How might thinking about these ways help us to become better
qualitative researchers?
Useful Resources
For an excellent step-by-step guide to coding from a grounded theory perspective, see
Strauss and Corbin 1990 and the chapter by Kathy Charmaz (2000) in the venerable
volume edited by Denzin and Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research (which itself
is worth a look, although it may require a trip to the library because of its high cost).
Alternatively, Miles and Huberman (1994) offer a thorough discussion of several different
approaches to coding, although their own coding examples are somewhat arcane and
confusing. Finally, there are several examples of coding and ‘making sense’ of data by
geographers, including collections by Clifford and Valentine (2003); Flowerdew and
Martin (2005); Limb and Dwyer (2001); and Moss (2002).
Notes
1. While it is always difficult to convey examples of coding without recounting the en-
tire scope of the research, it is hoped that these examples from a real research project are
sufficiently illustrative to demonstrate different coding approaches.
2. Despite the similar pairing of these two words, I am not referring here to Michel de
Certeau’s (1984) notion of ‘strategy’ (a technique of spatial organization employed by
‘the powerful’) and ‘tactic’ (an everyday means of ‘making do’, typically used by those
with few options), although there are certainly potential connections. Rather, I am
using the terms in their most literal sense as they are employed in Strauss and Corbin
(1990) to convey ideas about how people conceptualize what they want and what they
do to try to arrive at those goals.
543015_14_ch14.indd
View publication stats 294 11/6/09 11:57:57 AM