What do Easy Read and qualitative data analysis have in common?

I'm going to assume you know what Easy Read is. If you don't, check out Planet Easy Read. 

Easy Read relies on images and words. A good rule of thumb is that if a sentence needs two images, then it should be two sentences. If one image covers more than one sentence, you may be able to condense what you are writing.

Some words and phrases hide so much. Those two words 'qualitative data'. What image would you use? If there isn't a single image, then what is being masked from everyday view by the phrase? If a conference full of qualitative researchers were asked to submit a single image, there'd be quite a variety of images. Perhaps someone has done that! If not, perhaps they should. 

The sort of qualitative data I'm picturing as I write this blog is one familiar to many researchers: a set of transcripts from conversations, interviews and focus groups. 

A standard (pre-software days) approach would be to read, re-read, make some notes and then take highlighters to the text. You stare at the highlighted parts. Sometimes a word or phrase leaps to mind that sums up the essence of why you highlighted it. These words and phrases become 'provisional codes'.  

In my semi-techie way, I copy & paste my highlighted fragments into Excel, so each fragment has its own row in a worksheet, together with a column to identify which transcript it came from, and a column for its provisional code. 

I look at my provisional codes, and the text associated with them. Does some of the text need moving to a different provisional code because as I look at all the fragments of text, I realise I've mis-allocated text. Do I need to change the name of the code because everything seems to hang together but only if I change the word or phrase used as the code? Have I conflated different ideas under one code and need to split that provisional code into two or more? 

This is almost identical to how I produce Easy Read, except when I produce Easy Read I don't have to do it by myself; I always co-produce it with someone who relies on Easy Read as a way to access information. You can no more plonk a pretty picture and expect it to make the text more 'accessible' than you can plonk a nice-sounding code and expect it to make what the data is saying to you more 'accessible' to you. And yet that is often what happens in Easy Read - and sadly can happen in qualitative research too.

Both Easy Read and this type of qualitative data analysis involve taking large volumes of words and making meaning with and from them. In both, the starting point is a highlighter pen to identify what (in your eyes) is important. In one, the meaning-making moves on to adding a provisional image before shuffling back & forward between image and text until satisfied that the image means the words, and the words mean the image - or near enough! In the other, the meaning-making moves to adding a summarising word before shuffling back and forward between code and text fragment (or free node - or whatever terminology you use) until satisfied that the code fits the words, and the words fit the code.

There's going to be more I need to say - but for now I must dive back into qualitative data analysis because this doctoral thesis is not going to write itself!