# Qualitative studies

Version 0.2 (draft, to be reviewed by someone who works in the field) · 2026-11-13

For studies of text, talk or observation: interviews, focus groups, documents, online posts, field notes. In a
claimset lab, coded material is recorded with the qualitative extension (codes, codings and counts).

## Principle

A qualitative conclusion rests on what material was gathered, how it was read and coded, and by whom. Those choices
are made before the conclusion, and a reader can judge the conclusion only when they are stated: which approach
(themes found in the material, or a frame applied to it), how cases were chosen and when gathering stopped, how
codes were developed and checked, and where the researcher stands.

## approach

- **When:** any qualitative analysis.
- **Default:** name the approach and follow it as its authors describe: for example reflexive thematic analysis or
  codebook thematic analysis ([Braun and Clarke 2006](https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa); [Braun and Clarke 2021](https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238)), or content analysis, whose summative form counts coded material
  ([Hsieh and Shannon 2005](https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687)). Say whether codes are developed mainly from the material (inductive) or from existing theory or a frame
  set beforehand (deductive), and where the analysis lies between the two.
- **Why:** quality criteria differ between approaches, even between kinds of thematic analysis; judging one by
  another's standard misleads ([Braun and Clarke 2021](https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238)).
- **References:** [Braun and Clarke 2006](https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa); [Braun and Clarke 2021](https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238); [Hsieh and Shannon 2005](https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687).

## sampling-and-saturation

- **When:** choosing how many and which cases (people, documents, posts).
- **Default:** state how cases are chosen and the rule for stopping, fixed in advance where the design allows (in a
  claimset lab, in the plan): for example, analyse an initial set of cases, then stop when a stated number of
  further cases adds no new code ([Francis et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903194015); [Guest, Namey and Chen 2020](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076)).
- **Why:** "until saturation" without a stated rule cannot be checked ([Francis et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903194015)). Empirical studies give typical numbers,
  but only for given aims and populations: saturation came within 9–17 interviews or 4–8 focus groups in studies
  of relatively homogeneous populations with narrow aims ([Hennink and Kaiser 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523); [Guest, Bunce and Johnson 2006](https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903)), and more are needed for wider ones.
- **References:** [Francis et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903194015); [Guest, Namey and Chen 2020](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076); [Guest, Bunce and Johnson 2006](https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903); [Hennink and Kaiser 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523).

## second-coder

- **When:** codes are applied by a frame (codebook or content analysis), or counts decide a claim.
- **Default:** have a second coder code a share of the material independently (10–25% of units is usual), report
  agreement (Krippendorff's alpha, per code where codes can overlap) and how disagreements were resolved
  ([O'Connor and Joffe 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220); [Hayes and Krippendorff 2007](https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664)).
- **Why:** agreement shows that a coding frame can be applied consistently ([O'Connor and Joffe 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220)). In reflexive thematic analysis,
  where the researcher's reading is the method, agreement measures do not fit, and the researcher's reflexive
  engagement is reported instead ([Braun and Clarke 2021](https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238)).
- **References:** [Hayes and Krippendorff 2007](https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664); [O'Connor and Joffe 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220); [Braun and Clarke 2021](https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238).

## counts

- **When:** a claim rests on how often something occurs in coded material.
- **Default:** fix in advance what is counted (the codes, the unit, distinct by what) and the rule that decides the
  claim (in a claimset lab, the plan's counts); report the denominator.
- **Why:** counts chosen after reading the material describe what the reading found but cannot test it, because the
  reading chose them; a test is defined before the outcomes are seen ([Nosek et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114)).
- **References:** [Nosek et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114).

## reporting

- **Default:** follow COREQ for interviews and focus groups ([Tong, Sainsbury and Craig 2007](https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042)), or SRQR for qualitative research in general,
  including documents and observation ([O'Brien et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388)). Both ask for the research team's characteristics and reflexivity.
- **References:** [Tong, Sainsbury and Craig 2007](https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042); [O'Brien et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388).

## References

- Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology*,
  3(2), 77–101. [doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa](https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa)
- Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic
  analysis? *Qualitative Research in Psychology*, 18(3), 328–352. [doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238](https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238)
- Francis, J. J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. P., and Grimshaw, J. M.
  (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies.
  *Psychology and Health*, 25(10), 1229–1245.
  [doi:10.1080/08870440903194015](https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903194015)
- Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation
  and variability. *Field Methods*, 18(1), 59–82. [doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903](https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903)
- Guest, G., Namey, E., and Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in
  qualitative research. *PLoS ONE*, 15(5), e0232076.
  [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232076](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076)
- Hayes, A. F., and Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data.
  *Communication Methods and Measures*, 1(1), 77–89. [doi:10.1080/19312450709336664](https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664)
- Hennink, M., and Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of
  empirical tests. *Social Science and Medicine*, 292, 114523. [doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523)
- Hsieh, H.-F., and Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. *Qualitative Health
  Research*, 15(9), 1277–1288. [doi:10.1177/1049732305276687](https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687)
- Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., and Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution.
  *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 115(11), 2600–2606.
  [doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114)
- O'Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., and Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting
  qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. *Academic Medicine*, 89(9), 1245–1251.
  [doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388](https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388)
- O'Connor, C., and Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical
  guidelines. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods*, 19, 1609406919899220. [doi:10.1177/1609406919899220](https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220)
- Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., and Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a
  32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. *International Journal for Quality in Health Care*, 19(6),
  349–357. [doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042](https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042)

## Versions

- **0.1** (2026-11-13): first draft, for review by someone in the field.
- **0.2** (2026-11-13): each citation checked against the paper. The stopping rule now cites the papers that propose
  it (Francis et al. 2010; Guest, Namey and Chen 2020); typical numbers hold only for given aims and populations;
  the second-coder entry separates what agreement shows from reflexive thematic analysis; content analysis and the
  counts entry gain references.