The Headline Method of
Analyzing Qualitative Data
R. A. McWilliam
Siskin Center for Child and Family Research
Siskin Center for Child and Family Research
December 2014
Special-education and psychology researchers still often
emerge from their doctoral programs with little to no training in qualitative
research. This document is a guide for analyzing qualitative data—data
consisting primarily of words as opposed
to numbers. I developed the headline method in part out of frustration with
reviewing scores of manuscripts submitted for publication that had rich
information but resulted in insipid so-called findings. These findings have
often been called themes. A red flag
was always when the results were reported as “four themes emerged.” Churchill
once said, “Out of intense complexities intense simplicities emerge.” Although
he was referring to the fact that difficult things can have simple solutions,
it reminds me of weak conclusions apparently emerging from interesting words.
Electronic qualitative-analysis programs have probably been
partial culprits in this content-analysis approach to analysis. Such programs
are excellent for tagging data (like coding), for identifying the locations of
data bits, and for synthesizing the most common words or phrases, whether at
the raw-data level or at the data of codes or categories. For example, from a
data set of early interventionists’ perceptions of a change in model and
philosophy, it’s unsatisfactory to read that the themes of professionalism,
identity, views of families, and training emerged. What about these so-called
themes? To make matters worse, the results sometimes provide subthemes that are
simply more topics. The headline method provides directional findings or
hypotheses as alternatives to categorical findings or themes. According to
grounded theory, hypotheses can be derived from the data and the analyses (Strauss, 1987).
The headline method is so named because the critical step in
the analysis is proposing headlines or hypotheses. According to grounded
theory, we are usually not testing hypotheses in qualitative research. In the
headline method, we dissect the data to tag them and to help us become familiar
with them. That familiarity leads us to arrive at potential conclusions about
phenomena under study. We word those conclusions as hypotheses. We then go back
to the data to see whether they really support these hypotheses. We edit the
hypotheses as necessary, continuously returning to the data, which is called
recursivity (LeCompte & Preissle, 1994) or constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 2009).
Data
The nine steps in using the headline method are as follows:
1.
Organize the data
a.
Identify data sections
b.
Identify data bits
2.
Code the data bits
3.
Categorize the codes
4.
Propose headlines
5.
Build confirming and disconfirming tables
6.
Edit the headlines
7.
More tables as necessary
8.
Secure agreement
9.
Present findings
This guide begins from the point
where the researcher begins to have data. In qualitative research, the
researcher doesn’t have to wait until all the data are in.
Types
Four types of data are typically what will be analyzed. Transcripts are verbatim written
records of oral discourse, which could be individual or group interviews (i.e.,
focus group discussions). Tabled notes
are summaries of what people said, organized into conceptual spaces, such as
tables. The organization of these tables is decided a priori, which is a
potential limitation of this method. An advantage is that the data are
organized from the beginning. Prominent qualitative analysts have described
matrices and networks as useful display formats (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013):
“A matrix is essentially the ‘intersection’ of two lists, set up as rows and
columns” (p. 109); therefore, it is what I have described as a table. Although
Miles et al. describe matrices primarily as display options, they can also be
used in entering data. In two studies, I’ve recorded the interview and, on
playing each interview back, written summary statements, including quotations,
on the table, so the information is sorted. Field notes are “narrative descriptions of people, places, human
and natural events, patterns of interaction, statements of value and belief,
and the historical context in which the preceding take place” (LeCompte & Preissle, 1994) (p. 8). Like transcripts,
they are rarely conceptually organized, requiring some treatment in analysis.
Finally, documents are data types
that, in my field, are likely to be related to an individual child (e.g., an
individual education program), a family (e.g., an ecomap), an agency (e.g., a
brochure), or a law or rule (e.g., a policy).
Identifying Data Sections
Before coding data bits, data sections need to be
identified. Data sections are usually entries pertaining to one event, such as
an interview, an observation, or a document. Each entry (i.e., data section)
usually has a date, an identifier for the person, place, or document. The purposes of identifying data sections are
retrieval and analyzing the diversity of sources of data: If many of the same
opinions come from one person, the researcher needs to know that. The data
section identifier would let the researcher know that.
Data Bits
Data bits are single ideas that can receive one or more
codes. They can be single words, phrases, sentences, or even paragraphs, depending
on how molecular the coding is. It is important to identify data bits in case
researchers want to check intercoder agreement at the coding level. To ensure
that the same data are being coded independently, each coder has to know what
the data bits are. It is possible to identify data bits while doing first-pass
coding.
First-Pass Coding
In grounded research, the investigator does not analyze data
with specific codes in mind… theoretically. In actuality, researchers begin
analysis with theories that have driven the research and with previous
experiences, including knowledge of the literature, that make certain codes
likely to be used. For example, when I approach field notes of observations
made in young children’s classrooms, I will always notice and therefore code
instances of child engagement. I believe engagement is the key to learning and
I have been studying it for 30 years. It isn’t all I notice. But it is naïve to
think that qualitative analysts are using a tabula rasa in developing first-pass
codes.
The researcher assigns one- or two-word codes to data bits.
As more instances of the same concept occur, the researcher might use the same
codes, thereby reducing the number of codes that will need to be categorized in
the next step. But these emerging codes should not constrain researchers; they
should not apply codes that don’t fit well just because the codes have been
used previously. Researchers with a good vocabulary have an advantage because
they can use different words for similar but slightly different concepts.
Recursivity is important in data analysis so ideas
researchers form later in the process can be used with data they coded earlier.
For example, a researcher might see “the teacher glanced at Tony and seemed
about to say something but then turned back to Norah.” This data bit was first
coded as missed opportunity. But,
later in the process, the researcher had come across data bits that were coded selective reinforcement. On returning to
this data bit, the researcher changed the former code to the latter. Once all
the data have been coded, with the researcher going back through the data to do
this recursive coding, it is time to categorize the codes.
If one is not using a qualitative coding program, the
researcher can use Word. Some researchers put codes into comments; others use
bookmarks. I prefer to put the codes into the text, at the end of data bits, in
all caps. Sometimes, I highlight them. A disadvantage of analyzing in Word, is
that one cannot search across documents. So, at the point where I want to
retrieve information, using the search function, I put all the documents
together into one large document.
Second-Pass Categorizing
This step is the closest to the theme approach to
qualitative data analysis there is. Qualitative software packages can help with
categorizing codes, although I still prefer to do it in Word. One can write all
the codes down and look for patterns, such as codes related to the same idea or
to contrasting ideas. Codes can be put into networks or concept maps; I use
Cmap Tools. What we want to end up with is a list of categories that express
concepts—like metacodes. Inside each category are various codes. Some codes can
belong to more than one category. For example, the code integrated therapy can belong to the category inclusion and the category service
delivery.
Some codes might not end up in any category. They are
usually codes that don’t appear very often, even in conjunction with
similar-concept codes.
Researchers should then try linking categories that are
related to each other. This will help establish linkages and possibly lead to
headlines.
It is sometimes helpful to return to the data and assign
every data bit to one or more categories. This can be very useful in when
building confirming and disconfirming tables. To do this, the researcher goes
through the data, entering the category name at the end of each data bit. This
can be done on the version with the code already in the data set or it can be
in a copy of the uncoded data set, where the data bits are identified. I prefer
to add categories to codes, so I can see everything, even though the data
become busy with the original narrative, codes, and categories.
But, if the researchers consider they have stayed close to
the data, they can proceed to this organization of the categories without a
recursive coding step. Will return to the data bits in Step 5.
Headlines
The categories are organized, and linkages are drawn. The
researcher is ready now to propose headlines, so-called to emphasize that they
should provide a hypothesis, a potential finding, a story. For example,
“Teachers rarely set up activities in advance.” This headline screams at the
reader, we hope. It is more interesting and, importantly, more verifiable than
“A theme related to set up emerged from the data.” Or “Frequency of set-up.”
Headlines should be in the active voice and should not have
too many qualifiers that render the headline nondirectional or wishy-washy.
There’s plenty of time for that to happen. For example, “Families are confused
by the IFSP development process” is a good, clear headline, compared to “Some
families are sometimes confused by the IFSP process.” We can more easily look
for confirming and disconfirming evidence of the former headline than the
latter. As a result of checking back through the data, we might have to end up
with the wishy-washy version, but not at the beginning.
Confirming and Disconfirming Tables
Building these tables is the most important recursive step
in the headline method and is the major verification process. For each
headline, the researcher builds a table with confirming data bits and
disconfirming data bits. To look through the data, the researcher uses the find
function in Word, looking for relevant categories or even codes. The researcher
isn’t limited to these data bits, but searching can make the process more
efficient than reading through all the data again. The relevant data bits are
copied and pasted into the tables, along
with the identifiers for the data section, so the researcher can look down
through all the confirming data. The data section identifiers are needed to see
if the data in the tables belong to different informants or the same ones.
Editing the Headlines
Now that the researchers can see the evidence supporting or
not supporting the headline, they change the headline, if necessary. The change
might be to eliminate it altogether. Another change might be to alter the
wording to reflect the nuances that became apparent when the confirming or
disconfirming evidence was listed. As mentioned earlier, if the headline is
mostly correct but there are enough instances of disconfirming evidence, the
strongly worded headline might be tempered with suitable adjectives or adverbs.
In a recent study (not yet published) on integrated therapy, we had a headline
that began as “In therapy sessions, the child was alone with the therapist,
with no other children around.” After building a confirming and disconfirming
table, we changed it to “In most therapy sessions, other children were not involved.”
In this study, as a result of the recursivity inherent in building these
tables, we discovered two more headlines than we originally had.
More Tables
If a headline is altered significantly, a new confirming and
disconfirming table has to be built. For example, in another study, we began
with this headline: “Children with autism remain in an unsocial state despite
social initiations by others.” The confirming table had only three data bits.
We reconsidered the hypothesis and changed it to “Children with autism
inconsistently respond to social bids by others.” This required another look at
the data to build a new confirming and disconfirming table. This time, we found
enough data bits to support the statement and very few data bits to refute it,
so the new version remained a finding.
Agreement
Because the “instrument” in qualitative research is the
researcher, as opposed to a tool, the concept of interobserver agreement is
less relevant than in quantitative research. In quantitative research, one of
the indices of the reliability of the scores is the extent to which two people
independently using the tool would produce similar scores. It is the scores
and, by extension, the tools that are being judged by the reliability estimate.
In qualitative research, one would not expect two people necessarily to agree,
because each person has his or her own history, background, knowledge,
opinions, and so on.
On the other hand, questioning whether the reading or
listening of the narrative would generalize to another researcher is
reasonable. The idiosyncratic-researcher argument for not attending to
interobserver agreement breaks down if the researcher either has some bizarre
views on the phenomenon under study or has failed to describe his or her own
background, so the reader knows about the lens through which the data are seen.
As soon as we code narrative data, the opportunity for
interreader agreement presents itself. In this approach, we have three levels
at which agreement can be determined.
Codes
Although the list of codes is iteratively constructed by the
primary researcher, it would be an unreasonable standard to expect a second
person’s iteratively constructed list to be the same. So, in this approach, the
first researcher presents the list of codes to the second reader. This list can
have definitions, including some examples, but not too many. Too many would
obviate the test of agreement. The first researcher should also mark the data
bits on the narrative.
The second reader determines which code to apply to each
databit. If the first researcher applies two codes to a databit, and the second
reader applies only one, but it was one that agreed with the first researchers’
codes, that counts as an agreement, even though the second reader did not apply
the second code. Some researchers prefer only one code per databit, to help
with interreader agreement, but I prefer to err on the side of nonmutually
exclusive codes. The goal is for 85% agreement on the coding of databits.
Categories
It is also possible to establish agreement on categories,
instead of on codes. The rule in inter-“rater” agreement is that it should be
established at the level at which the data are reported. For example, if you
code behavior in a single-subject study and report the frequency of those
codes, the interobserver agreement needs to be at the code level. If you
collapse some codes into bigger categories, in a manner similar to what I have
described here, for qualitative analysis, and report the findings at the level
of categories, not codes, interobserver agreement is at the level of
categories, not codes. Therefore, in qualitative analysis, the first coder
codes the narrative data then collapses those into fewer categories. The second
reader uses only the list of categories to demarcate each databit. Again,
agreement should be 85%.
Headlines
Agreement at the level of headlines is not quite the same,
because databits are not examined. Instead, the second reader examines the
confirming and disconfirming tables for the findings (i.e., headlines) and
informs the first analyst whether any examples do not fit in the columns in
which they were listed. A more rigorous type of inter-“rater” analysis is for
the second reader to be given the hypothesis (i.e., finding or headline) with
instructions to go through all the data and complete confirming and
disconfirming tables. The expected agreement should be an approximately equal
ratio of confirming to disconfirming examples. For instance, if Reader 1 found
a 10:1 ratio of confirming to disconfirming examples, and Reader 2 found a 12:1
ratio, the agreement would be considered 83% (10/12). Agreement > 80% is
considered good with this calculation. Analysts have, therefore, the choice of
reviewing the first reader’s confirming and disconfirming tables or completing
new ones, independently.
Member Check
The member check is another test of veracity. Information is
returned to participants to secure their agreement. This member check is best
done at the level of findings (i.e., headlines, hypotheses). If a case-study
method is being employed, the researcher can send back either the findings for
the individual case or the findings for the whole group of cases (e.g., the
final conclusions). “Members” are asked to comment on whether the findings seem
reasonable to them. Researchers can ignore the feedback, make some adjustments
to the findings, or overhaul them.
Presentation of Findings
One of the most common and irritating ways of presenting qualitative
results is through a “garden path analysis” (Bazeley, 2009), in which “a thematic
‘analysis’ can take the reader along a pleasant pathway that leads nowhere:
‘Here are the roses, there are the jonquils, and aren’t the daffodils lovely
today!’” (p. 9). The method described here allows the researcher to state
actual findings, which become the first structure for presentation, such as in
a research report or manuscript.
Headlines
The headline is presented, explained, and supported with
some examples—not too many. You’d be surprised how many readers skip over the
examples.
Examples of Analyses
In the Method, not Results, section, an example of a confirming
and disconfirming table should be given. If the number of examples is too
large, some representative examples are listed.
Linkages and Patterns
After the headlines have been described, the researcher
looks for linkages and patterns among the headlines. Some potentially causal
relationships might be found. For example, if one headline is Teachers recently graduated understand the
concept of engagement better than do experienced teachers and another is Teachers who talk much about engagement have
classrooms where children are active learners, one might hypothesize that
younger teachers have more active learners, not because of their youth (alone)
but because they focus on engagement. Another linkage might be conceptual. For
example, one headline might be Home visits where numerous families are present
are more fun and another might be Talkative
mothers make home visits easy. The link between both is features affecting
the home visit atmosphere. Many types of linkages and patterns are possible,
and it is far preferable to examine these linkages than just to list
findings—and we should avoid listing “themes.”
This document has described an efficient, grounded approach
to analyzing qualitative data. It avoids the garden path problem and it leads
to further research, because every finding is a hypothesis. The method involves
coding, categorizing, establishing headlines, confirming or editing them,
determining agreement among researchers, and presenting findings.
