Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature on qualitative data analysis mostly concerns analyses pertaining to an individual research question and the organization of data within that research question. Few authors have written about the entire qualitative dataset from which multiple and separate analyses could be conducted and reported. The concept of analytic direction is a strategy that can assist qualitative researchers in deciding which findings to highlight within a dataset. The objectives of this paper were to: 1) describe the importance of analytic direction in qualitative research, and 2) provide a working example of the concept of analytic direction. METHODS: A qualitative dataset from one of the author's research programs was selected for review. Ten potential analytic directions were identified after the initial phenomenological analysis was conducted. Three analytic directions based on the same coding template but different content areas of the data were further developed using phenomenological analysis (n = 2) and qualitative description (n = 1) and are the focus of this paper. Development and selection of these three analytic directions was determined partially relying on methodological criteria to promote rigour including a comprehensive examination of the data, the use of multiple analysts, direct quotations to support claims, negative case analysis, and reflexivity. RESULTS: The three analytic directions addressed topics within the scope of the overall research question. Each analytic direction had its own central point or story line and each highlighted a different perspective or voice. The use of an inductive and deductive approach to analysis and how the role of theory was integrated varied in each analytic direction. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of analytic direction enables researchers to organize their qualitative datasets in order to tell different and unique "stories". The concept relies upon, and promotes, the conduct of rigourous qualitative research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.581 | 0.623 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".