MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411686137 · doi:10.1177/16094069251356667

Qualitative Methods Case Study: Using MAXQDA in Indigenous HIV Journey Mapping Research

2025· article· en· W4411686137 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jared Star, Laurie Ringaert, Linda Larcombe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaNine Circles Community Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIndigenousHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Qualitative researchSociologyMedicineGeographyPsychologyAnthropologyVirologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a case study using MAXQDA, a Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), to analyze interview data within the Northern HIV Journey Mapping Project, which explored the experiences of Indigenous people living with HIV in Manitoba, Canada. By adapting patient experience mapping and process mapping methods, the research team traced participant journeys through the HIV Care Cascade, identifying barriers and facilitators to well-being. Within a decolonizing framework informed by Two-Eyed Seeing and Ethical Space, we critically examined the role of CAQDAS in Indigenous health research, highlighting both its utility and its tensions with Indigenous storytelling traditions. Our methodological approach balanced Western analytical tools with Indigenous knowledge systems, ensuring that technology served the research rather than distorting the lived realities of participants. MAXQDA enabled data visualization that made complex, non-linear healthcare journeys more accessible to researchers and policymakers. However, the software’s structuring of qualitative data into discrete codes and categories raised epistemological questions about how Indigenous narratives are “treated” as data within a neoliberal knowledge economy. To mitigate these concerns, we engaged in reflexivity, involved Indigenous Elders and research associates, and emphasized relational accountability in both analysis and dissemination. This case study contributes to the field of qualitative methods by demonstrating how CAQDAS can be employed within decolonizing Indigenous research while acknowledging its limitations. Results suggest that while tools like MAXQDA enhance methodological rigour and knowledge mobilization, researchers must remain critically engaged with their impact on Indigenous ways of knowing. We recommend that future research prioritizes Indigenous-led adaptations of digital analysis tools and emphasize participatory approaches to ensure that qualitative research serves Indigenous communities in culturally responsive ways. Our reflections offer insights for scholars seeking to decolonize qualitative inquiry while maintaining methodological integrity in health 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.465
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4650.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.931
GPT teacher head0.824
Teacher spread0.107 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207