Видео

Of course! Glad it's helped.

Glad to hear that! Thank you for watching.

Glad it was helpful!

Thank you! Cheers!

Of course! Thanks for watching.

Of course! Thank you for watching.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you for watching! We're so glad this was useful for you.

We have an article on axial coding here: delvetool.com/blog/axialcoding

Delve currently supports PDF, word, and text files. For PDF and word Delve will extract the text from those documents and bring it into Delve. We have limited support through Excel files. I can send you more information if you chat us via the chat bubble on our website: delvetool.com

Glad it was helpful!

Great question! Both thematic analysis and grounded theory are inductive approaches, building insights from the data itself. They share similarities in structuring insights, where grounded theory uses open, axial, and selective codes, comparable to the codes, themes, and core themes in thematic analysis. However, thematic analysis focuses mainly on analyzing data, while grounded theory covers the entire process, including data collection. For instance, theoretical sampling in grounded theory involves collecting and analyzing data iteratively using the constant comparison method, which is core to its approach. Grounded theory also has the concept of theoretical saturation, which is the point where no new insights are emerging from the data. While thematic analysis can use iterative data collection and analysis, it doesn't traditionally use the concept of theoretical sampling or saturation. There are many variations of both thematic analysis and grounded theory, so their similarities and differences will vary based on which exact method is being used. But to summarize Thematic Analysis really is a analysis method, while Grounded Theory has a larger scope as a methodology.

Thanks for your feedback! This is our quick 8 minute overview of Thematic Analysis. If you want more in depth examples please check out our 30 minute video on thematic analysis. You can find it here: ruclips.net/video/FMh_2Q2t6kA/видео.htmlfeature=shared

Glad it was helpful!

A qualitative code is a label used in qualitative research to categorize and identify themes, patterns, or concepts within textual data. These codes help researchers systematically analyze and interpret non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, or documents, to extract meaningful insights.

You're welcome 😊

Glad you think so!

Good news! Delve supports Filipino transcripts

@@DelveTool Fantastic! Will there be a package for students or academic staff? Please send a link. Thank you!

@@DantePerezUPOU we do have an education pricing option, you can read more about it here: intercom.help/delvetool/en/articles/3805420-education-pricing

You can definitely use thematic analysis for other forms of content. Thematic analysis can definitely be used for open ended survey results!

You are welcome! Glad it was helpful

Glad it was helpful!

You're in luck, discourse analysis is often used to analyze text! Let me know if you have any other questions!

You are so welcome!

Glad it was helpful!

Welcome to the channel and thanks!

Glad it was helpful!

Good news, there's no chicken and egg paradox in grounded theory (GT), as you should start with a topic of interest (the focus of your dissertation), however, you should not start with a theory. It's the data you gather that guides how you will explore your topic of interest. This method ensures that the theory you develop is genuinely informed and shaped by your findings, allowing for a more organic emergence of theory directly from the data itself. It's worth noting, though, that there's a methodological debate within the GT community on how much you should allow existing theories to influence your thinking. Classical grounded theory advocates for minimizing prior knowledge to avoid bias, emphasizing an approach closer to a blank slate. On the other hand, constructivist grounded theory acknowledges the inevitability of researchers' preconceptions and sees value in letting existing theories inform the research process to some extent. Despite these differences, both approaches agree on starting with a topic of interest, ensuring the research remains grounded in the data collected.

Thanks!

Pakitingnan po ang aming blog post para sa mas malalim na talakayan kung paano ginagamit ang grounded theory: delvetool.com/groundedtheory

Certainly, narrative analysis can be effectively conducted with the researcher as the sole participant, particularly through autoethnography. This method involves the researcher analyzing their own personal experiences to uncover broader insights. It emphasizes the importance of reflexivity, where researchers critically examine their own biases and perspectives to ensure their analysis transcends personal narratives to touch on universal themes. While this approach provides rich, detailed insights, it requires careful consideration of subjectivity and ethical concerns, making reflexivity crucial for meaningful analysis. Some of this video may be as relevant, particularly the parts where you are finding patterns across narratives. So the approach may need to be adjusted some as it's presented here. This video assumes that you are interviewing more than one person

@@DelveTool Thank you so much! Can the same be done to thematic analysis if the sole participant is the researcher thru autoethno?

@@tahanancinema yeah you certainly can. Narrative analysis tends to work with less data. With thematic analysis with authoethno, you'd want to probably collect a fair amount of data. And maybe even across a number of different mediums. You may also want to collect information over time. Thematic Analysis is quite a flexible methodology so it definitely can work. Full disclosure I don't have direct experience with doing autoethnography and Thematic Analysis, but it definitely could work. You may want to put a heavy focus on reflexivity, and may want to consider recruiting someone to be a peer debriefer

You are so welcome!

Glad it was helpful!

So glad it was helpful!

Glad it was helpful!

I personally would disagree with you there. AI can definitely help with certain parts of process and I'm curious how this will evolve over time. But the researcher brings a lot of their own insight and life experience to analyzing data. Two different people will analyze data in two different ways, and to abdicate all meaning-making to AI would imply that there is one correct answer. When in fact both ways can valid forms of analysis. I've played around using AI to analyze data, and by itself it tends to find surface level themes from the data. With some guidance from a human it can be nudged to discover some more nuanced and insightful themes. But a human is still critical to the process. That's my take at least, I'm curious what you have found in your own experience!

Happy to help

Glad it was helpful!

So I personally avoid trying to show frequency of themes in thematic analysis. As frequency does not necessarily equate to relevance in Thematic Analysis. (this is not a hard fast rule, but just our preference for TA)

Glad you thought it was helpful!

😂😂

Glad you think so!

Glad you liked it!

Glad it was helpful!