Step One.

This week we explored the process of coding and creating codebooks. I have found text analysis to be a more creative process that I initially thought. Creating codes and recognizing themes is an enjoyable task which allows the researcher to explore text in a manner which reveals potentially extraordinary amounts of information. This process can become problematic if the researcher creates too many themes to the point where analysis is bogged down, and the researcher suffers from fatigue or becomes overwhelmed. Miles and Huberman (1994) recommend 50-80 codes. This number does not represent the amount you will most likely start with. Codebooks are subject to change and undergo a sort of evolution throughout the research and analysis. The original theme lists tend to be comprised of a large number of themes that over time are redefined, adapted, or in some cases dropped or merged with another theme.

There are a number of approaches which can be utilized depending on resource constraints and research design. I started by reading some of the open-ended text from my interviews to see what strategies I naturally began to use. I found myself frequently recognizing linguistic connectors, word repetition, and transitions. Themes that emerged included vulnerability, access, trust, change, cash crop, thief, seasonal, and farm inputs to name a few. One technique that I struggled with was Missing Data. I think that this technique will become easier to utilize as my familiarity with the text increases. To help myself recognize missing data I used an approach that we learned in class last week, which is to specifically examine the text using a single technique. In this case, I re-read the text and looked only for missing information. Using this approach helped me explore the text through a specific lens and exposed themes I had not noticed on my first review. One interesting theme that emerged from using the missing data technique was the discovery that individuals who participated in the farmer field school did not have critiques of that program. I suspect that they may be unwilling to criticize the project because they fear that doing so may jeopardize their inclusion in the project or result in criticism from project managers or fellow participants. Up until this point I hadn’t given much consideration to this possibility. Recognizing information that may be missing is a powerful tool. Having said that I can also see how it could be used incorrectly. This is where having multiple coders would be useful, a point that was made several times in this week’s readings.

With respects to creating codes and codebooks, it is clear that regardless of expertise the process is time-consuming and continuous. While the use of specific software has made certain elements easier, creating a codebook with strong validity is a marathon, not a sprint. With that in mind, I am looking forward to taking the next step.