A. BRAILAS, E. TRAGOU & K.

PAPACHRISTOPOULOS

American Journal of Qualitative Research

2023, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 19-31
https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13230
© 2023 AJQR. http://www.ajqr.org
ISSN: 2576-2141

Introduction to Qualitative Data Analysis and Coding with QualCoder

Alexios Brailas1
Panteion University, Athens, Greece

Elena Tragou
Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece

Konstantinos Papachristopoulos
Athens School of Fine Arts, Greece

ABSTRACT
This article demonstrates the process of coding textual data, using QualCoder, a free and open-
source software tool for supporting the qualitative data analysis process. The aim is to
introduce novice qualitative researchers and undergraduate students of qualitative methods to
the process of open coding in a clear and concise way. The systematic coding of the empirical
data is a crucial first step in many popular qualitative methods like Thematic Analysis or
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. The initial coding phase is a prerequisite for
analyzing and making sense of the data. By using QualCoder, the researcher utilizes a
dependable, efficient, and easily accessible tool to work with coding without losing
transparency, rigor, and depth in the process. The article concludes by discussing the multiple
benefits of using such a tool for the coding process, as well as limitations and potential risks,
and thus highlighting the multi-purpose pairing between technology and qualitative research.

KEYWORDS: coding, open-source, QualCoder, thematic analysis.

Over the last three decades, Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software
(CAQDAS) has been widely used in qualitative research across many disciplines, including
social sciences, humanities, business, and the Arts (Banner & Albarran, 2009; Cope, 2014;
Woods et al., 2016). In addition, numerous articles discussing the methodological foundations
behind CAQDAS-based qualitative research have been published (Carcary, 2011; Chandra &
Shang, 2017; Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012). Moreover, during the past decade, scientists and
researchers witnessed the rapid growth of the open-source software tools used to conduct
research and/or support the overall research process. A characteristic example is the R
programming language widely utilized in quantitative as well as qualitative research projects
(Chandra & Shang, 2017). CAQDAS tools are becoming an increasingly integral component
of most qualitative studies and qualitative researchers are being highly encouraged to use such
tools in order to strengthen the quality of their work (Brandão & Costa, 2020; Niedbalski &
Ślęzak, 2022). Along those lines, the aim of this paper is to show the reader how to utilize a
user-friendly and open-source qualitative research tool, specifically QualCoder (Curtain,
2023), demonstrating the multiple benefits of such a tool in the coding process and thus
highlighting the multi-purpose pairing between technology and qualitative research.

1
Corresponding Author: Department of Psychology, Panteion University, Athens, Greece.
E-Mail: [email protected]

19
 Scholars have called for qualitative researchers to demonstrate transparency and
reliability within the data analysis process (Kapiszewski & Karcher, 2021; O’Kane et al., 2021;
Pratt et al., 2020). Transparency can be defined as “the degree of detail and disclosure about
the specific steps, decisions, and judgment calls made during a scientific study” (Aguinis et al.,
2018, p. 83), and trustworthiness, the central concept by which to judge the quality of
interpretive qualitative research (Evers, 2018). However, the CAQDAS literature does not
provide readers with a wide range of specific CAQDAS techniques or a common language to
succinctly express how researchers have conducted data analysis—both of which are key to
communicating transparency and creating reliability (O’Kane et al., 2021) and in this vein, we
argue that the more we elaborate in open-source tools the more we can test new avenues for
reliability and validity.
It is important to add here that the value of QualCoder as a research tool lies in its use
within the context it is placed. It is not the aim of this paper to speak about QualCoder as a
software tool in general. Rather, this effort focuses on the usefulness of QualCoder in the coding
process of data for qualitative researchers, both novices and advanced. As QualCoder facilitates
the coding process, by making it easier and more user-friendly, it is beneficial for researchers
dealing with large chunks of data when trying to make sense of it, organize it, categorize it, and
create patterns within and/or between data categories. As Rampin and Rampin (2021) point out,
open-source qualitative data analysis suites fill “a specific research need for qualitative
researchers who cannot afford access to the software to do their work… There have been fewer
than twenty open-source CAQDAS packages available ever, and fewer than five are being
currently maintained” (p. 1).
Moreover, the recently developing culture of open science in social science research has
enriched the way that researchers and especially qualitative research professionals exchange
ideas, brainstorm about their research practices and collaborate on works in progress, data,
publications, etc. As the open science mentalité becomes more vibrant around the world among
professionals (Hagger, 2022; Woelfle et al., 2011) different open-source software tools, such
as QualCoder, have been developing, assisting in the dissemination of the accessibility of
research among interested parties, the sharing of knowledge and the development of
collaborative research networks (Vicente-Saez & Martinez-Fuentes, 2018). QualCoder, as a
research tool, contextualized in the culture of open-source software, can further assist in the
embodied practices of coding, production, dissemination, and distribution of knowledge from
a research-based-point-of view (FOSTER Consortium, 2018).
The idea of this study sprouted in the land of academic teaching. The main concern of
the authors was how to efficiently introduce university students and novice qualitative
researchers to the practice of qualitative analysis with the aid of an appropriate software tool.
For that purpose, this paper is organized into four main sections, unfolding: (a) an overview of
four basic stages in qualitative research, (b) highlighting the importance and explaining the
coding process, (c) the usefulness of incorporating QualCoder software in the research process,
and (d) the advantages and disadvantages of such doing.
Qualitative research involves roughly four basic stages. The first stage refers to the
overall planning and designing of the research project, that is, determining the research
questions, deciding the sampling strategy, getting access to the field, and ensuring ethical
conduct (Crabtree & Miller, 2023; Willig, 2013). The second stage involves the production (or
collection in quantitative terms) of the empirical data (Mason, 2017) by means of systematic
observation, such as interviewing, journal keeping, reflecting, focus grouping, etc. Raw
empirical data are usually represented as text (audio and video transcripts, field notes, collected
documents, etc.) or as images (videos, digital artifacts, etc.) (Brailas, 2020). However, the
collection of empirical data in textual format is still privileged in the field, meaning, qualitative
researchers often conduct semi-structured interviews to explore and capture the personal lived
experiences of the participants. The third stage involves coding, analyzing, and making sense

20
A. BRAILAS, E. TRAGOU & K. PAPACHRISTOPOULOS

of the data (Brailas, 2014; Crabtree & Miller, 2023). And the fourth stage refers to the writing
up of the research, communicating the results to the scientific community and the general
public. For the purposes of this paper, we focus on the third stage and, more specifically, on
the coding process, which is usually the first step in the qualitative data analysis journey.
There are a plethora of standardized methods and techniques that have been developed
and used for analyzing qualitative data, which often entails a procedure where the raw textual
data—such as the transcriptions of semi-structured interviews—are organized and coded in
higher-order descriptive or conceptual categories. The process of moving from the level of the
raw empirical data to an abstract representation of them is very useful in the research process
despite the inevitable loss of information. The representation of the data is never the data per
se. We may better understand this statement with a metaphor from everyday life. We all know
the importance and value of maps. A map helps people navigate through an area and understand
its morphology while providing valuable overall information about the landscape of that area.
However, as Korzybski (1958) pointed out, a map is not the territory. A map, despite its utility,
does not contain all the details that exist on the territory that it is supposed to represent. The full
experience of the territory can be obtained only by walking on it and by allowing oneself to
saturate one's senses in the aroma, the height, the ground structure, or the architecture of that
territory. But even in this case, no matter how much time one may spend walking in the area –
counting trees, buildings, roads, sidewalks, traffic lights, the people that live in the area, and so
on—it is impossible to have an overall sense of the shape and the morphology of the territory
unless they look at the corresponding map. That is, while the map of a territory does not contain
all the vivid richness of the actual territory, it, nevertheless, provides extremely valuable
information at a different level of understanding: That of the grand scheme. Therefore, an
abstract representation of data allows for new understandings to emerge, not evident at the level
of concrete data.
Qualitative researchers look for a systematic way to move from the level of the raw
empirical data to that of their abstract representation, knowing that during this process, some
details are lost while new insights are gained. By doing that, qualitative researchers attempt to
spot recurring patterns, point out connections between concepts, identify emerging themes, etc.
As Chenail (2012a) noted, by conceptualizing coding as a process of creating maps for the vast
empirical data, qualitative data analysis can be understood “as a form of knowledge
management” where the researcher “transforms data into information, information into
knowledge and knowledge into wisdom, maintaining the scientific rigor and the artistic aplomb
to produce a systematic and creative product” (p.248).
In this article, we demonstrate the process of coding textual data using QualCoder
software. Our aim is to introduce novice qualitative researchers and undergraduate students of
qualitative methods to the process of coding in a clear and concise way. For a more thorough
discussion of coding as a decision-making process addressing critical questions—like what to
code, how many codes to develop, what types of coding sets to use, etc.—see the related article
by Elliot (2018). Initial coding of the raw empirical data is a fundamental step in many
standardized qualitative methods, such as thematic analysis, interpretative phenomenological
analysis, discourse analysis, and many others (Brailas, 2014; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Morgan &
Nica, 2020; Souto-Manning, 2014). QualCoder is a recently developed free and open-source
software application compatible with all major operating systems (Curtain, 2023). Also, it
provides an easy-to-use interface without requiring a learning curve for a researcher to utilize
it. Therefore, it is ideal for all researchers and especially novices. However, as an introductory
software in its initial phase of development, QualCoder does not provide (yet) the full array of
utilities and features usually available in commercial quality data analysis software packages.
Nevertheless, it provides all the basic functionality needed for coding qualitative data like
interviews or focus group transcripts and performing basic qualitative data analysis.

21
Data Analysis and the Coding Process

Thematic analysis is an introductory and popular method for analyzing textual

qualitative research data. In thematic analysis the researcher identifies key concepts and
meanings in the data and assigns labels or codes to these concepts through a systematic coding
process. The codes are then grouped into broader themes or categories that capture the meaning
of the data. Thematic Analysis is particularly useful for exploring complex, subjective
phenomena and understanding how individuals interpret and make sense of their experiences.
Nevertheless, coding is usually the first step researchers take in the process of qualitative data
analysis, not only in thematic analysis but in many other methods. As a nearly ubiquitous
practice in qualitative research, coding forms a fundamental aspect of the analytical process.
Through coding, researchers can break down their data to produce novel insights and new
understandings (Elliott, 2018).
As already mentioned, the coding process mirrors the systematic way of the researcher’s
journey from the level of raw empirical data (like interview transcripts, observational notes,
narrative accounts, etc.) to the level of their abstract representation. This is achieved by
identifying and tagging data segments using meaningful labels. A code is a tag we attach to a
data segment, whether that segment is a word, a sentence, a paragraph, or a bigger quotation.
Code names should be concise and indicative of the data attempted to represent. Each code
corresponds to a unit of meaning, a recurring pattern, or anything the researcher begins to
recognize in the data as an independent unit of analysis. In this context, a unit refers to a
fundamental entity that serves as the focus of analysis, and allows researchers to identify and
articulate the qualities and characteristics that they identify and perceive within that element
(Chenail, 2012b). Alternative terms used are categories, topics, or themes. A theme refers to a
significant aspect of the data that pertains to the research question and reflects a certain degree
of patterned response or meaning within the dataset (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
All these terms are used interchangeably to describe the same thing: Something in the
data that makes sense for the researcher to be identified as a unit of analysis. However, usually,
the terms category and theme are used at a higher level of analysis to describe a group of codes
that are somehow linked or interrelated. That is, the first round of analysis involves creating
codes (first-order categories), while subsequent revisits of the coded corpus involve grouping
codes into categories or themes (higher level of analysis). Acquiring the skill to systematically
analyze qualitative data and identify recurring patterns of meaning, group them into categories,
and cluster them into broader themes is something considered essential for all qualitative
researchers (Willig, 2013).
Two fundamental approaches to the coding process can be recognized. The first
approach is deductive and involves coding the empirical data by utilizing a pre-defined, or
theory-driven, coding scheme. The second approach is inductive and entails creating codes in
vivo by recognizing meaningful patterns in data. The latter is also referred to as open coding to
highlight the dynamic nature of the process as the researcher constantly creates (opens) codes
every time they revisit the data segments and check out if and how they relate to the research
question (Corr & Davidson, 2023; Mason, 2017). It is quite common, at the beginning of the
process, for a researcher to have difficulty recognizing discrete analytical units in the data and
to constantly have to open new codes for every new piece of information. This usually results
in coding almost everything using a new code each time. Gradually, as a researcher gains an
understanding of the data, the codes become more concise representations of the data segments.
Moreover, the data analysis process quite often entails both deductive and inductive
coding: Some codes are theory-driven while others emerge as the researcher stays curiously
open in creating connections among the data bits. During data analysis, qualitative researchers
systematically identify individual units of research importance, describe the qualitative
distinctions that are relevant, and consider how these coded pieces of information are

22
A. BRAILAS, E. TRAGOU & K. PAPACHRISTOPOULOS

interconnected in a meaningful way with regard to the research question. This reflective process
enables researchers to make informed conclusions about what they have learned from the data
(Chenail, 2012a).
At this point, we need to return to the basic question we posed earlier: What actually
constitutes a coding unit? As already noted, a code can be a word, a sentence, a paragraph, or
any other data unit. Quite often, novice qualitative researchers feel stressed about what should
or should not be coded and how to identify suitable patterns of meaning to be coded in their
raw data. These questions seem to be of particular concern to them when asked to conduct
qualitative research, produce and analyze empirical data, and write a research report. As we
discussed earlier, what actually constitutes a coding unit is a key question that many researchers
and theorists of qualitative methods have tried to answer (Elliott, 2018; Fereday & Muir-
Cochrane, 2006; Issari & Pourkos, 2015; Willig, 2013). For practical reasons, in this paper, two
types of coding are identified: First, a researcher can code descriptions of phenomena—like
descriptions of situations, events, feelings, and experiences—anything one recognizes as such
in the data; And second, a researcher can code interpretations and/or patterns of interpretations
as they appear to emerge from the data. In other words, researchers may use descriptive or
interpretive/conceptual codes.
We read and reread the data as many times as we need to get acquainted with it while
we review and re-review all the emergent codes. In an open coding approach, we do not follow
a predefined and rigid coding scheme (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Thompson, 2022); we may need
to remove codes, let new codes emerge, and/or add or modify codes as we acquire better
theoretical sensitivity (a term used to express precisely the gradually increasing ability of the
researcher to perceive several qualities of the empirical data of his research) of our body of data
(Nathaniel, 2022). The data is our “star” (Carney et al., 1997), and one of our jobs, as qualitative
researchers, is to pay attention to the various relationships we identify and unearth between the
different pieces of data during the analysis process.
At this point in the process, the need to use the right software to support quality analysis
will most probably stand out. We need to decide which is the right software for ensuring quality
in data analysis. At this phase of data analysis, a researcher needs to have a practical tool to
help him/her open new codes, assign them to different parts of the data, merge codes, and/or
add codes.
Most importantly, during this part of the research, qualitative researchers need to be able
to see all the codes that have been created at any time during research, along with the assigned
brief descriptions of what each code represents. It is also very important that researchers need
to have access to all the sections that have been coded with a specific code across the body of
data. In other words, researchers must be able to move easily, directly, and efficiently from the
level of raw empirical data to the level of codes (as already noted, a higher level of data
representation) and vice versa.
In doing so, qualitative researchers can (a) understand whether they use codes
consistently, that is, coding the same kind of semantic content throughout the entire spectrum
of empirical data, and (b) understand the code types used in different datasets, i.e., the codes
used in one interview vs. another, or those used in coding the interviews of male vs. female
interviewees. The possibility of an easy and direct transition from one level of empirical data
to another is extremely critical in any research project. Then, as is often happening in qualitative
research, once the researcher has reached a final set of codes, a second or even a third researcher
can be called in to codify the empirical data again and, in doing so, ensure the “objectivity” of
the whole process.

23
An Example of Coding Textual Data with QualCoder Open-Source Software Case and
Methodology

As mentioned, the systematic coding of the empirical data is a critical part of many
qualitative research methods and approaches. To that end, the use of CAQDAS software, like
QualCoder, allows researchers to maintain a detailed research journal and project log that
document their progress efficiently and make their work available for auditing purposes
(Brandão & Costa, 2020), making the data analysis process more trustworthy and transparent.
Qualcoder is a free, open-source program available for Linux, macOS, and Windows platforms
(Curtain, 2023). More specifically, QualCoder is being developed and provided by Colin
Curtain under an MIT open-source license
(https://github.com/ccbogel/QualCoder/blob/master/LICENSE.txt). As a typical qualitative
data-analysis support software suite, QualCoder is designed to help researchers manage and
code large amounts of data while also providing tools to help them identify patterns and themes
within the data. The latest stable release (ver. 3.2) can be downloaded from GitHub:
https://github.com/ccbogel/QualCoder/releases. QualCoder runs as a local application on the
user's computer. The developers maintain a dedicated blog with support information, manuals,
and tutorials at: https://qualcoder.wordpress.com. In this section, we will provide an
introductory example of coding textual data with QualCoder.
After downloading and running the application, the first step is to create a new project
by clicking “Project” and then “Create New Project” in the sub-menu as shown in Figure 1. At
this point, we need to provide a project name and select a local folder for saving.

Figure 1
The Project Creation Window

After creating the project holder, we can add one by one our research items (for example
the files containing the transcriptions of the interviews in our study). We can import a file into
the project by clicking on “Files and Cases” and then selecting “Manage Files” in the submenu,
as shown in Figure 2. Qualcoder supports a variety of data formats, including text, audio, and
video.
To begin coding the actual data, we select a source file and then we have to click on the
“Coding” tab. This will bring up the main program window (Figure 3) where we can create new
codes or select existing codes to apply them to specific text segment. We can also add notes
and memos to the codes and the respective coded segments. We can select any part of the text
and then “drug and drop” any code from the code list on it.
24
A. BRAILAS, E. TRAGOU & K. PAPACHRISTOPOULOS

Figure 2
The Window for Adding Files with Data

Once we have coded all our data files, we can use Qualcoder tools to help us analyze
and explore our findings. For example, we can generate reports that show the frequency and
distribution of our codes in the data files, or we can create visualizations that help us identify
patterns and themes in our data. The set of codes can be easily rearranged by merging or
splitting existing codes. By clicking on a specific code (from the list of codes we have created),
we can bring together all the text excerpts we have coded with it in the entire body of data.
Also, if any of these text excerpts were coded with more than one code, all the codes tagged up
to that point would be displayed. In that way, we can visit and revisit our data bits without
losing track of the coding history at any point in time. Keeping the researcher in relationship
with data is, as we all know, an integral part of the qualitative analysis and discussion process.

Figure 3
The Main Window for Opening New Codes and Coding Text Segments

Discussion

Without a doubt, technological developments have enabled new forms of data coding
to be incorporated into qualitative work. Qualitative researchers, novice or experienced, need
to be able to enjoy an open and “flowing” relationship with their coding process; that is, to be
able to visit and revisit their tags, change codes if they cease to represent the data bits, create
new ones if the need arises and so forth. This courting process with the body of data is very

25
important for the researcher because it lays the ground for the analysis process. And the more
informative, fun-like, easy-to-use, and manageable the courting process is, the more time the
researcher has to dive into their coding system without feeling tired or afraid to try again if the
coding system does not represent appropriately the reality of the interviewees/the data.
The CAQDAS tools, including QualCoder and many other, have been saving valuable
time for the researchers to immerse in the coding system instead of spending limitless time
doing it manually and, more so, be able to manage extended bodies of data without losing
themselves in trying to figure out how to do it manually. QualCoder can not only provide a
sufficient tool for all researchers to sort out their data but can help them do so in a creative and
informative way without having to spend weeks or months doing so and without losing the
essence of the emerging reality of the data, which is the core of qualitative research. By having
more quality time in their hands and by utilizing a tech tool that makes it easy for the researchers
to stay in touch with their data, they free themselves up to play with categories, reflect on the
data chunks, alter or get rid of unmeaningful tags, and, thus, delve into their data in a multi-
level creative, systematic and dynamic way looking for how the patterns of data make
meaningful connections no matter their size, their quantity, or range (O’Kane, 2020).
In other words, QualCoder’s layout makes it very easy to learn and use not only for its
bookkeeping purposes of the research but also in helping the researcher develop an awareness
of the connecting patterns of the data bits, which in turn make up the bulk of the research data.
The main challenge in qualitative research lies in the process of transforming numerous pages
of field notes into a rigorous, reliable, and transparent final report that effectively communicates
the research results (Chandra & Sang, 2019). QualCoder, as a CAQDAS dependable tool, can
help researchers in the process of organizing and identifying patterns and concepts in their data
without undermining their creativity, diligence, and attention to detail. Nevertheless, it is still
the responsibility of the human researcher to interpret the data, create and apply codes, and
display the results with the support of the CAQDAS software (Chandra & Sang, 2019). In other
words, the researcher’s input is mandatory for the meaningful coding of the body of textual
data, while QualCoder provides its complimentary housekeeping mechanism.
With the already noted ease of retrieving coded material, researchers with the help of
QualCoder can share their work with other colleagues as well as work collaboratively in the
same project. QualCoder allows adding extra coders to the same project, which makes the
collaboration process much more time- and space-efficient, and trustworthy.
Nevertheless, while there are many advantages to using qualitative data analysis
software such as QualCoder in qualitative research, there are also some disadvantages and
potential risks to consider. First of all, popular commercial qualitative data analysis software
can be expensive and may not be affordable for researchers with limited funding or for
independent researchers (however, this is not the case with QualCoder which is an open-source
project and therefore always free of charges). Also, a sophisticated research software requires
some basic technical skills and having enough time to familiarize with the interface in order to
use it effectively, which may limit access for researchers who are not comfortable enough with
technology or do not have much available time. Another potential risk is that some researchers
may become overly reliant on the software features assuming falsely that it is the tool per se
that reassures the integrity and the quality of the overall process. As a consequence, these
researchers may not develop enough of their own analytical and critical skills and instead rely
on the specific research tool affordances to guide their inquiry. As André (2020) points out, “if
QDA software is used for the analysis of qualitative data, there is a fundamental risk that the
direction of analysis of the researchers is merely within the shape and cut of the corset of QDA
programs” (p. 46). Such reliance on software can lead to oversimplified and mechanical coding,
which may interfere with the interpretative process and limit the artistic, creative, and complex
meaning-making aspects of qualitative research (Brailas & Sotiropoulou, 2023; DeHart, 2022;
Guthrie, 2020). As André (2020) continues, researchers are at risk of not developing “neither

26
A. BRAILAS, E. TRAGOU & K. PAPACHRISTOPOULOS

their own paths of analytical organization and penetration of the data, nor paths that are
independent of the programs. To put it pointedly: Researchers no longer think for themselves
or outside the functional scope of the software” (p. 47). Another critical issue is reassuring data
privacy and anonymity. Storing qualitative data on a computer or online platform may pose a
risk to the confidentiality and privacy of research participants’ information (Akram & Perveen,
2021; Hesse et al., 2019). Therefore, it is critical for researchers to be mindful of potential risks
and take the appropriate steps to mitigate them.
Notwithstanding these limitations, with QualCoder researchers can maintain the
efficiency and transparency of the coding system, deeper exploration, and refinement of the
coded data, and help ensure the consistency of the coding system either by working alone or in
research groups. According to Rampin and Rampin (2021), there are four currently maintained
(meaning there are active groups of software engineers that update and/or further develop their
codes) CAQDASS software packages, which are: Taguette, QualCoder, qcoder, and qdap.
However, the two of them (qcoder and qdap) are based on the R programming language, thus
requiring a level of advanced technical knowledge by the end users. QualCoder and Taguette,
on the other hand, do not require any programming or other advanced technical knowledge to
install them and start using them.
QualCoder is (currently) a desktop-only application, therefore, limiting the ability for a
group of researchers to work concurrently on the same research project. On the other hand,
Taguette can be easily installed and run on a cloud web server allowing different collaborators
to have access and work on the same research project simultaneously and from a distance.
However, QualCoder seems to have a more sophisticated interface, offering more functions and
utilities, like handling audio and video (Curtain, 2023). Nevertheless, the existence and
maintenance of many alternative open-source CAQDAS applications is critical for the
development of a thriving open research ecosystem in qualitative research and providing
scholars with different tools to meet their special research needs, which lacks in comparison to
quantitative research approaches (Love et al., 2019; Navarro & Foxcroft, 2018; Stander & Dalla
Valle, 2017).

Concluding Remarks

It may be challenging, to say the least, for researchers to think that computer-assisted
strategies can manage their data. Some of us may not be as adept with computer technology,
may not know how to use such software and/or may have no inclination to learn new computer
skills, even if, as this article suggests, CAQDAS technology makes our research projects more
efficient and easier to handle. It is not the aim of this paper to persuade qualitative researchers
to change the way they have been doing research, but we strongly suggest that they consider
the idea of experimenting with QualCoder, especially those of us who work in academic
environments and deal with inspiring researchers-to-be who are using software technologies
with the same ease that we used to fill out entire rooms with post its, cut data chunks with
scissors to form categories and use a variety of highlighters to make our coding system
workable.
As shown, by using QualCoder, the researcher utilizes a dependable, efficient, and
easily accessible tool to work with coding the data or recoding the coded data without losing
transparency, rigor, and depth in the process, paving the way for the data analysis process. As
Bringer et al. (2006) pointed out, some researchers may be skeptical about using CAQDAS
software because they may not understand the technology behind it or because they believe in
the “false dichotomy between research tool and process” (p. 263). They go on to clarify that
“inherent in questioning how research may have been different [if CAQDAS software had not
been invented] is the implication that the tool (manual vs. computer) is the main determinant in
the research outcome” (p. 263).

27
 In other words, QualCoder, as well as any other CAQDAS technology, cannot substitute
the quality of the research and its researcher. That is not its purpose. QualCoder can only make
a specific stage of the research process, that of the coding process, more accessible, enriching,
and informative without diminishing the epistemological, methodological, and philosophical
context of any qualitative research/er. QualCoder can be used as a tool to stir up creative
discussions among professionals about the coding system without dictating how the rest of the
research project will unfold. It can only ensure the creation of time and space researchers need
to have in order to enjoy the much more enticing stage of research analysis.
Furthermore, as already stated, QualCoder, as an open-source software, can further
assist in the production, dissemination, and communication of scientific knowledge by making
its embodied practices of research coding known to the public and thus promoting the open-
access culture to which it belongs. QualCoder’s originality, as far as this article suggests, does
not lie in its potential as another qualitative data analysis software but rather in its efficiency
and transparency-building practices it can provide for a researcher, a research project, and/or a
network of researchers who adhere to the epistemological and methodological implications of
the open-source research culture.

Acknowledgement

This study received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and
Innovation Program (project “MUSES”) under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement
No. 101028279 (Outgoing Phase in UQAM).

References

Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2018). What you see is what you get?
Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of
Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011
Akram, M., & Perveen, S. (2021). Book review: The ethical algorithm. American Journal of
Qualitative Research, 5(2), 251–254. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/11389
André, E. (2020). Reflections on qualitative data analysis software: Possibilities, limitations
and challenges in qualitative educational research. Revista Electrónica En Educación y
Pedagogía, 4(6), 41–55.
https://doi.org/10.15658/rev.electron.educ.pedagog20.05040604
Banner, D. J., & Albarran, J. W. (2009). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software:
A review. Canadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 19(3). 24–31.
Brailas, A. (2014). Networked grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 19(8), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1270
Brailas, A. (2020). Using drawings in qualitative interviews: An introduction to the practice.
The Qualitative Report, 25(12), 4447–4460. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-
3715/2020.4585
Brailas, A., & Sotiropoulou, C. (2023). Relational, appreciative, and process-oriented digital
storytelling: A duoethnography. Human Arenas. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-023-00337-7
Brandão, C., & Costa, A. P. (2020). Reflecting on CAQDAS and ethics. The Qualitative Report,
25(11), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4767
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2006). Using computer-assisted
qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project. Field Methods,
18(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X06287602

28
A. BRAILAS, E. TRAGOU & K. PAPACHRISTOPOULOS

Carcary, M. (2011). Evidence analysis using CAQDAS: Insights from a qualitative researcher.
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(1), 10–24.
Carney, J., Joiner, J., & Tragou, H. (1997). Categorizing, coding, and manipulating qualitative
data using the WordPerfect® word processor. The Qualitative Report, 3(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1997.2029
Chandra, Y., & Shang, L. (2017). An RQDA-based constructivist methodology for qualitative
research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 20(1), 90–112.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-02-2016-0014
Chenail, R. J. (2012a). Conducting qualitative data analysis: Qualitative data analysis as a
metaphoric process. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 248–253.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1818
Chenail, R. J. (2012b). Conducting qualitative data analysis: Reading line-by-line, but
analyzing by meaningful qualitative units. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 266–269.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1817
Cope, D. G. (2014). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. Oncology Nursing
Forum, 41(3), 322–323. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.322-323
Corr, P. G., & Davidson, L. F. (2023). Conducting grounded theory research in the early days
of the Coronavirus pandemic: Process interruptions, barriers, and innovative approaches
to study design. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(1), 149–167.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12924
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (2023). Doing qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Curtain, C. (2023). QualCoder 3.2. https://github.com/ccbogel/QualCoder/releases/tag/3.2
DeHart, J. D. (2022). Crafting a visual review of the literature. American Journal of Qualitative
Research, 6(2), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12128
Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative
Report, 23(11), 2850–2861. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3560
Evers, J. (2018). Current issues in Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS): A user and
developer perspective. The Qualitative Report, 23(13), 61–73.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3205
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
FOSTER Consortium. (2018). What is Open Science?
https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.2629946
Guthrie, K. (2020). Qualitative inquiry with adolescents: Strategies for fostering rich meaning
making in group interviews. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 4(3), 92–110.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/8586
Hagger, M. S. (2022). Developing an open science ‘mindset.’ Health Psychology and
Behavioral Medicine, 10(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2021.2012474
Hesse, A., Glenna, L., Hinrichs, C., Chiles, R., & Sachs, C. (2019). Qualitative research ethics
in the big data era. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(5), 560–583.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218805806
Issari, P., & Pourkos, M. (2015). Qualitative research methodology: Applications in psychology
and education. www.Kallipos.gr.
https://repository.kallipos.gr/bitstream/11419/5826/4/15327_Isari-KOY.pdf
Kapiszewski, D., & Karcher, S. (2021). Transparency in practice in qualitative research. PS:
Political Science & Politics, 54(2), 285–291.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000955

29
Korzybski, A. (1958). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and
general semantics (5th ed.). Inst. of General Semantics.
Love, J., Selker, R., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Dropmann, D., Verhagen, J., Ly, A., Gronau, Q.
F., Smíra, M., Epskamp, S., Matzke, D., Wild, A., Knight, P., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R.
D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2019). JASP: Graphical Statistical Software for Common
Statistical Designs. Journal of Statistical Software, 88(2), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v088.i02
Mason, J. (2017). Qualitative researching (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Morgan, D. L., & Nica, A. (2020). Iterative thematic inquiry: A new method for analyzing
qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920955118
Nathaniel, A. (2022). When and how to use extant literature in classic grounded theory.
American Journal of Qualitative Research, 6(2), 45–59.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12441
Navarro, D. J., & Foxcroft, D. R. (2018). Learning statistics with jamovi: A tutorial for
psychology students and other beginners. https://doi.org/10.24384/HGC3-7P15
Niedbalski, J., & Ślęzak, I. (2022). Encounters with CAQDAS: Advice for beginner users of
computer software for qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 27(4), 1114–1132.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.4770
O’Kane, P. (2020). Demystifying CAQDAS: A series of dilemmas. In T. R. Crook, J. Lê, & A.
D. Smith (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (pp. 133–152).
Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-838720200000012020
O’Kane, P., Smith, A., & Lerman, M. P. (2021). Building transparency and trustworthiness in
inductive research through computer-aided qualitative data analysis software.
Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 104–139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119865016
Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020). Editorial essay: The tumult over
transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy
qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663
Rampin, R., & Rampin, V. (2021). Taguette: Open-source qualitative data analysis. Journal of
Open Source Software, 6(68), Article 3522. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03522
Sinkovics, R. R., & Alfoldi, E. A. (2012). Progressive focusing and trustworthiness in
qualitative research: The enabling role of Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis
Software (CAQDAS). Management International Review, 52(6), 817–845.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-012-0140-5
Souto-Manning, M. (2014). Critical narrative analysis: The interplay of critical discourse and
narrative analyses. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(2),
159–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.737046
Stander, J., & Dalla Valle, L. (2017). On enthusing students about big data and social media
visualization and analysis using R, RStudio, and RMarkdown. Journal of Statistics
Education, 25(2), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2017.1322474
Thompson, J. (2022). A guide to abductive thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(5),
1410-1421.https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5340
Vicente-Saez, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature
review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428–436.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. McGraw Hill Education,
Open University Press.
Woelfle, M., Olliaro, P., & Todd, M. H. (2011). Open science is a research accelerator. Nature
Chemistry, 3(10), 745–748. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1149

30
A. BRAILAS, E. TRAGOU & K. PAPACHRISTOPOULOS

Woods, M., Macklin, R., & Lewis, G. K. (2016). Researcher reflexivity: Exploring the impacts
of CAQDAS use. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(4), 385–
403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1023964

Notes on Contributors

Alexios Brailas, PhD, is teaching faculty at the Department of Psychology, Panteion

University, Athens, Greece, and adjunct faculty at the Hellenic Open University, teaching
courses on research methods, psychology, pedagogy, systems thinking, narrative inquiry, and
creativity. He is also organizing and facilitating group workshops and community
empowerment interventions. His approach to research is participatory, design-based, and
practice-focused.
Elena Tragou, PhD, is an adjunct lecturer at the Hellenic Open University. She is a
systemic psychologist/psychotherapist, researcher, and writer. She has published two books,
numerous research articles and has been participating in European and International
conferences presenting her work on systemic research and therapy, human communication, and
supervision and therapy.
Konstantinos Papachristopoulos holds a PhD in Social/Organizational Psychology.
Currently, he is a Marie Curie Fellow at the Athens School of Fine Arts. He has been working
for Local Authorities, NGOs and research institutions since 2002. For the last 12 years, he has
been training on the Systemic Approach at the Athenian Institute of Anthropos.

ORCID

Alexios Brailas, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2016-4438

Elena Tragou, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8336-902X
Konstantinos Papachristopoulos, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1672-5703

Manuscript received March 8, 2023

Final revision received March 21, 2023
Accepted March 26, 2023

31