PLEASE respond to TWO individual students with ONE post EACH. EACH response MUST

PLEASE respond to TWO individual students with ONE post EACH. EACH response MUST be AT LEAST 250 words EACH with citations from all least 1 scholarly source. The following is the ORIGINAL Discussion Thread: Discuss the key benefits and strategies of coding. What are the potential dangers to avoid while coding interviews?
First Student: John
O’Leary (2009) warns the qualitative researcher that efforts to reduce observations to meaning are intricate and complex and threaten the richness of the data collected. Cautioning students of the discipline that given the wide array of data analysis that has developed, they frequently spend a great deal of time trying to determine the best path forward, haphazardly select a methodology, press on without a well-defined method, or an assortment of each of these to properly code their data. Qualitative researchers attach a different meaning to the word “code” than other disciplines, according to Glesne (2016). Glesne stated that qualitative researchers use the phrase code to describe the process of placing similar pieces of information discerned from research into categories for further analysis. Hopefully, the researcher will be able to identify themes, patterns, and processes from this analysis and discover links between these pieces of information. To avoid confusion, some commentators refer to coding in this context as indexing, though Glesne does not, as it deprives the value of linking concepts of great importance in the process. Viruru and Rios (2021) define coding as breaking down into useful chunks of information, which can now be done through computer software programs.
Knowing what coding is does not lend itself to understanding what strategies might be in play for its deployment. Mock and O’Connor (2022) suggested the strategy of emergent coding when confronting a large task. Emergent coding allows the codes to arise from frequent data reviews, which the researchers evaluate before establishing codes. The predominant strategy of coding, relying on pre-set codes the researchers impose on the data at the outset of the project, risks the misclassification or overlooking of a critical category that could have been observed with patience. Emergent coding requires the researchers to conduct several iterations of the data before settling on coding categories. Allen et al. (2017) stated that emergent coding allows for categorization only after the researcher has examined the data through an iterative process. Busetto et al. (2020) laid out two main strategies for qualitative research, each resulting in the necessary coding of the data. Regardless of the strategy pursued, they explain that there is a strong preference for two researchers to engage in the coding process. This is especially true at the beginning of the coding when useful parameters for each category have not yet been fully developed. Frequently, the common meaning for each code matures during the process.
Campbell et al. (2013) recognize that the reliability of results remains an issue for qualitative researchers. There is a great risk that different coders, raters, and observers will come to different conclusions. Intercoder reliability remains a challenge in many interview-based projects. Cheung and Tai (2021) agree with this analysis and believe that researchers must better explain their coding techniques and transparency in their processes to combat this problem. Ryan (2009) endorses that greater transparency in the qualitative research process should relieve some of the stress regarding the reliability of the observations and coding that supports the project.
Christian Worldview
Scripture directs people to be curious. The unknown world is God’s glory, and kings are to uncover it (King James Bible Online, 2007, Proverbs 25:2). I believe a modern trope exists that Christians reject science. If this is true, this is odd to me. God expects people to study his great works (King James Bible Online, 2007, Romans 111:2). Understanding qualitative research methods is consistent with this theological direction.
References
Allen, K.-A., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2017). School values: A comparison of academic motivation, mental health promotion, and school belonging with student achievement. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 34(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2017.5 Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475 Cheung, K. K., & Tai, K. W. (2021). The use of intercoder reliability in qualitative interview data analysis in Science Education. Research in Science; Technological Education, 41(3), 1155–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1993179 Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson. King James Bible Online. (2007). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1769) www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
Mock, B., & James O’Connor. (2022). Taxonomic categories for commissioning and startup hot spot strategies. Construction Innovation, 22(1), 120-140. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-07-2020-0118
O’Leary, Z. (2009). Researching real-world problems: A guide to methods of inquiry. Sage. Ryan, M. (2009). Making visible the coding process: Using qualitative data software in a post-structural study. Issues in Educational Research, 19(2), 142-161. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?u…
Viruru, R., & Rios, A. (2021). Needed methodological emancipation: Qualitative coding and the institutionalization of the Master’s Voice. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(10), 1146–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021814 2) Timothy, At this point in the course, we have shaped research questions, run trials to see if they are viable, examined ethics in research, and conducted an observation. Most of the activities thus far have revolved around the collection of data. Now it is time to start analyzing that data. Given the nature of open-ended questioning needed for qualitative research, there is a range of responses. Once the data is collected, the question remains of how to interpret that data. Inevitably there will be themes present and many respondents will have similar answers. One way to interpret the data is through coding. Coding done by people is a way to inductively find common themes or ideas from individual survey responses (Miner et al., 2023). There must be a way to decipher the information obtained.
The process of coding varies by the researcher. As the process is not typically published, coding is not subject to scrutiny. Somewhat like taking notes. However, coding is necessary to help decipher data. Coding is an accepted method for qualitative researchers that involves breaking down data into much smaller narratives that are easier to decipher (Viruru & Rios, 2021). The process can be done manually or using software. I use the Leeds Method which develops relationship clusters when researching genealogy. Genetic genealogy research is time-consuming and can be difficult. It is necessary to investigate the ancestors who are related to each other in hopes of determining the most recent common ancestor between two individuals linked through a family tree (Erturk et al., 2022). That method involves color codes which help to demonstrate lineage graphically. I plan to use a similar method to group qualitative responses. Also, each response may fit more than one theme, so I plan to group by theme while allowing for overlap or even agreement between respondents on multiple factors. Analyzing qualitative data has numerous decision points. The researcher must decide how to code responses and which factors to use. At many points during the research process, the researcher may look to the Bible for help. The Bible says, “Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision” (King James Bible, 2017/1769, Joel 3:14). The researcher is in a place somewhat like the valley of decision.
Although this post may portray coding as being a difficult and daunting task, it is intended to assist the researcher and to make their analysis of the data better and more accurate. Such a system is needed to decipher the data, draw conclusions, and ultimately make recommendations. Inevitably, there will be themes that the researcher will find, and documenting those themes can become important to portray the topic that is being studied.
References
Ertürk, M. S., Fitzpatrick, C., Press, M., & Wein, L. M. (2022). Analysis of the genealogy process in forensic genetic genealogy. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 67(6), 2218-2229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15127
King James Bible (2019). King James Bible Online. https://kingjamesbibleonline.org. (Original work published 1769). Miner, A. S., Stewart, S. A., Halley, M. C., Nelson, L. K., & Linos, E. (2023). Formally comparing topic models and human-generated qualitative coding of physician mothers’ experiences of workplace discrimination. Big Data & Society, 10(1), 205395172211491. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221149106
Viruru, R., & Rios, A. (2021). Needed methodological emancipation: Qualitative coding and the institutionalization of the Master’s voice. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(10), 1146-1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211021814