SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Task 3 – Data Coding and Analysis Project
Lawrence Koh Choon Teck
Fairview University College
EQUN 8115
Qualitative Research Methods
1 March 2026
Data Coding and Analysis Project: Doctoral Students' Qualitative Research Experiences
1. Introduction
This report systematically analyzes an interview with Sarah, a doctoral candidate in Education,
exploring the challenges of her first major qualitative research project. Using computer-assisted
qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) to code data and identify themes, the study applies
Sarah J. Tracy's (2020) "Eight 'Big Tent' Criteria" to ensure research quality and is grounded in
her phronetic approach—a pragmatic, iterative, and ethically engaged methodology aimed at
producing a meaningful, contextual understanding of the doctoral research journey.
2. Methodology: Coding Process & Analytic Strategy
The analysis followed an iterative model that integrated the provided Conceptual Framework
(CF) with emergent data patterns, aligning with abductive reasoning (Timmermans & Tavory,
2012).
Software: CAQDAS was used to manage and code data, visualize findings, and generate a
codebook and thematic table.
Coding Approach: A deliberate hybrid (deductive-inductive) strategy was implemented to ensure
both theoretical alignment and data sensitivity (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006):
- Deductive Coding: The initial coding pass was guided by the four primary dimensions of the
CF: Conceptual Challenges, Methodological Challenges, Emotional Challenges, and Support
Systems & Coping Strategies.
- Inductive Coding: A subsequent, immersive line-by-line reading of the transcript generated 42
specific, grounded codes that captured the nuanced details of Sarah's narrative (e.g., "Fear of
IRB rejection," "Isolation from quant peers").
Analytic Progression: The analysis progressed through three key stages to build understanding,
following the principles of reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006):
[Link] Cycle Coding: Initial open coding tagged relevant segments across the entire
transcript.
2. Categorization: Related codes were logically grouped to form descriptive sub-categories
nested within the four parent CF categories.
3. Theme Development: Through constant comparative analysis and interpretive abstraction,
three core analytic themes emerged to elucidate the connections between identified categories
and the essence of the lived experience.
3. Visual Outputs: Codebook and Thematic Structure
3.1. Codebook Excerpt
The coding process identified four main categories of challenges faced by doctoral students in
qualitative research, reflecting the multidimensional nature of this experience. An excerpt from
the structured codebook is presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Codebook Excerpt: Categories and Illustrative Data
Note. This table presents a sample of the codes organized under the primary categories of the
provided Conceptual Framework. IRB = Institutional Review Board.
3.2. Thematic Structure
The CAQDAS-supported analysis culminated in the development of three core analytic themes,
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Thematic Network of the Doctoral Qualitative Research Experience
Note. The three themes were developed through constant comparative analysis and explain the
relationships between the coded categories.
Thematic Network Diagram
4. Findings & Analysis Aligned with Research Objectives
RO1: To identify the multidimensional challenges faced by doctoral students.
Challenges in doctoral research form an interconnected "challenge ecosystem" (Braun & Clarke,
2006), where conceptual issues like paradigm confusion intensify methodological difficulties,
fueling emotional challenges such as imposter syndrome (Clance & Imes, 1978). This pattern
aligns with findings on psychological distress among doctoral candidates in Singapore's intense
academic environment (Tan & Yeo, 2022; NUS, 2021). Consequently, the doctorate emerges as
an "identity project" involving continuous negotiation of professional self-concept (Jazvac-
Martek, 2009; Gardner, 2009).
RO2: To explore the support systems and strategies students employ.
Doctoral students navigate challenges through a triad of support: Peer Community, which
validates struggle and reduces isolation (Lovitts, 2005); Mentorship, which translates theory into
practice, a focus of programs like those at NTU (NTU Graduate College, 2023); and Self-
Reflexive Practices. The latter aligns with Tracy (2020), turning anxiety into an analytic tool to
enact practical wisdom, or phronesis (Flyvbjerg, 2001).
RO3: To develop a conceptual framework for scaffolding qualitative methods education.
The emergent theme of Phronetic Praxis provides a foundational principle for pedagogical
design, shifting from traditional procedural training to an approach where competence is
developed through supported engagement with uncertainty rather than its avoidance.
1. Normalize the Iterative Struggle as an intrinsic, non-pathological part of qualitative inquiry,
moving beyond a deficit model of student challenges.
2. Build Structured Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998) into the curriculum core (e.g.,
mandatory writing groups, peer debriefing sessions).
3. Integrate Reflexivity as Core Methodology, teaching journaling and memoing as essential
analytic skills rather than optional supplements.
4. Frame Mentorship as Phronetic Guidance, where advisors provide contextual, practical
wisdom for navigating ambiguity, modeling the "practitioner's artistry" (Schön, 1983) of
qualitative research.
5. Reflexivity: Trustworthiness via Tracy's Eight 'Big Tent' Criteria
This analysis applies Tracy’s (2020) Eight ‘Big Tent’ Criteria to establish trustworthiness and
ethical grounding:
1. Worthy Topic & Significant Contribution: The topic addresses a critical, practice-based issue
in doctoral education—the emotional and cognitive challenges of qualitative research. Its
contribution is pragmatic, offering evidence-based insights to improve pedagogical support. This
is particularly pertinent in high-stakes academic environments like Singapore's, where
supporting doctoral student well-being is increasingly recognised as integral to research quality
and innovation (NUS Institute for Applied Learning Sciences, 2024).
2. Rich Rigor: The study demonstrates rigor through a transparent, multi-stage analytic process
using CAQDAS, a structured codebook, thematic table, and thick description of the analytic
journey.
3. Sincerity & Self-Reflexivity: My positionality as a doctoral candidate shapes this work,
fostering empathy but risking over-identification. I mitigated this by grounding interpretations in
the data, using Tracy's framework for external checks, and explicitly acknowledging my stance
in Section 6.
4. Credibility: Credibility was pursued through crystallization—employing multiple lenses (CF,
grounded codes, themes) and connecting findings to established literature to produce a robust,
nuanced understanding.
5. Resonance & Ethical Practice: The identified themes are likely to resonate with a wide
audience of students and educators, supporting naturalistic generalization. The analysis aims for
a generative, ethical impact by focusing on supportive solutions and maintaining participant
confidentiality.
6. Meaningful Coherence: The project demonstrates clear coherence between its stated
objectives, the chosen methodology, the findings presented, and the conclusions drawn.
7. Ethical Transparency: All data were treated confidentially; participant identifiers were
removed, and the analysis seeks to represent Sarah's experience with fidelity and respect.
8. Significant Contribution: As outlined in RO3, the analysis contributes a practical framework
for enhancing qualitative pedagogy, with potential for meaningful application in graduate
training programs.
6. Researcher Positionality & Connection to Future Research
My engagement with this analysis is deeply informed by my own positionality as a doctoral
researcher and, significantly, by the focus of my planned future study. I am preparing to conduct
research on the synergistic relationship between artistic creativity and athletic practice, an
intersection I inhabit as a visual arts teacher and endurance athlete (Taylor & Littleton, 2016).
My personal experience mirrors a key finding from Sarah's transcript: that identity and practice
are deeply intertwined (Wenger, 1998). I have observed in myself what I term "kinetic clarity"—
the phenomenon where sustained physical discipline directly fuels pedagogical creativity and
effectiveness.
This lived reality forms the foundation of my proposed research, which will extend the
conversation from navigating challenges to exploring how disciplined practice can transform
challenges into sources of strength and innovation. Tracy's (2020) framework will guide this
future work, ensuring it meets the same standards of rigor, reflexivity, and ethical commitment
demonstrated in this analysis.
7. Conclusion
This project applied Tracy's (2020) qualitative methodology to analyze a doctoral student's
research experience, identifying three core themes: interconnected conceptual-methodological
struggles, the emotional process of "becoming a researcher," and the development of practical
wisdom, or phronesis, through support and reflection (Flyvbjerg, 2001). The findings provide a
pedagogical framework that normalizes struggle and values reflexivity, aligning with
contemporary shifts toward holistic doctoral training in Singapore (Tan, 2023). The analysis also
served as a reflexive exercise, informing future research and demonstrating a commitment to
rigorous, ethical qualitative inquiry through Tracy's (2020) "Eight 'Big Tent' Criteria."
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Link]
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women:
Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3),
241–247. [Link]
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. [Link]
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can
succeed again. Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, S. K. (2009). The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support.
ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(6), 1–127.
Jazvac-Martek, M. (2009). Oscillating role identities: The academic experiences of education
doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 253–264.
[Link]
Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the
transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154.
[Link]
National University of Singapore. (2021). Graduate students' experience survey: Key findings
report. NUS Office of the Senior Deputy President and Provost.
National University of Singapore Institute for Applied Learning Sciences. (2024). Supporting
doctoral researcher well-being: A framework for action.
Nanyang Technological University Graduate College. (2023). Mentorship and community:
Annual report on graduate student development.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Tan, C. K. (2023). Reimagining the doctorate: Towards a pedagogy of care and complexity in
Singapore. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(2), 145–160.
[Link]
Tan, J. Y., & Yeo, S. P. (2022). Perfectionism, anxiety, and depression in doctoral candidates: A
study of risk factors in a Singaporean university. Asian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 12(1), 78-95.
Taylor, S., & Littleton, K. (2016). Contemporary identities of creativity and creative work.
Routledge.
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From
grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.
[Link]
Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge
University Press.