Qualitative

Section 2 — Methods Subsections

Write Methods in past tense. Qualitative methods sections require transparency about the researcher's role, epistemological stance, and analytical approach. Never invent procedural details; flag unknowns with [PLEASE VERIFY: ___].

2.1 Research Team and Reflexivity

Describe the researchers' characteristics, their relationship with participants, and their epistemological stance. This subsection is essential for qualitative rigour and distinguishes qualitative from quantitative reporting.

Template sentences:

"The research team comprised [N] researchers. The principal investigator ([INITIALS]) is a [PROFESSION/DISCIPLINE] with [YEARS] years of experience in [FIELD/METHOD]. [INITIALS] has [RELEVANT EXPERIENCE / PRIOR RELATIONSHIP WITH TOPIC / PERSONAL STANCE]. [OTHER RESEARCHERS: describe qualifications and roles.]"

"The epistemological framework underpinning this study was [constructivism / critical realism / pragmatism / phenomenology / other]. This framework was chosen because [RATIONALE]."

"Reflexive notes were maintained throughout data collection and analysis to document the researchers' evolving understanding, assumptions, and potential biases. The lead researcher's positionality as [RELEVANT CHARACTERISTIC -- e.g., a clinician, an outsider to the community, a person with lived experience] was considered in the interpretation of findings."

Checklist:

• Researchers' qualifications and experience described
• Relationship with participants stated (prior relationship, power dynamics)
• Epistemological framework stated
• Researcher assumptions and biases acknowledged
• Reflexive practices described (journaling, memos, team discussion)

2.2 Study Design

Describe the qualitative approach, the theoretical framework (if any), and the rationale for the chosen methodology.

Template sentences:

"This study used a [qualitative descriptive / phenomenological / grounded theory / ethnographic / case study / narrative inquiry / participatory action research] approach. [THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: 'The study was informed by [THEORY/FRAMEWORK], which [DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT GUIDED THE STUDY].']"

"A [semi-structured interview / focus group / ethnographic observation / document analysis] design was used. [RATIONALE: 'Semi-structured interviews were chosen to enable in-depth exploration of individual experiences while maintaining focus on the research questions.']"

Checklist:

• Qualitative approach named and defined
• Theoretical framework stated (or explicitly stated as absent)
• Rationale for approach provided
• Data collection method named and justified

2.3 Participant Selection

Describe the sampling strategy, recruitment method, sample size, and data saturation.

Template sentences:

"Participants were recruited using [purposive / maximum variation / snowball / theoretical / convenience] sampling from [SETTING/SOURCE]. The sampling strategy aimed to capture [DIVERSITY DIMENSIONS -- e.g., variation in age, sex, disease severity, professional role, geographical location]."

"Recruitment continued until data saturation was reached, defined as [DEFINITION -- e.g., 'the point at which no new themes emerged from additional interviews' / 'informational redundancy' / 'theoretical saturation as defined by Glaser and Strauss']. [N] participants were included in the final sample."

"Participants who [declined / withdrew] were [N]; reasons for non-participation included [REASONS, if known]."

Checklist:

• Sampling strategy named and justified
• Recruitment method described
• Sample size stated with rationale
• Data saturation defined and described
• Non-participation documented (N, reasons)

2.4 Setting

Describe the physical and social setting where data collection took place, and any contextual factors relevant to the findings.

Template sentences:

"Interviews were conducted [in person at [LOCATION] / by telephone / by video-conference using [PLATFORM]] between [START DATE] and [END DATE]. [DESCRIPTION OF SETTING -- e.g., 'Interviews took place in a private room within the outpatient clinic to ensure confidentiality.' / 'Focus groups were held in a community centre familiar to participants.']"

"The study was conducted during [RELEVANT CONTEXT -- e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic, a period of healthcare reform, immediately after policy implementation]. This contextual factor may have influenced participants' experiences and perspectives."

Checklist:

• Interview location and mode described
• Privacy and confidentiality measures stated
• Dates of data collection
• Relevant contextual factors described
• Presence of non-participants noted (if applicable)

2.5 Data Collection

Describe the data collection procedures in detail: interview guide, recording, field notes, duration, and pilot testing.

Template sentences:

"A [semi-structured interview guide / focus group topic guide] was developed by the research team based on [LITERATURE REVIEW / EXPERT CONSULTATION / THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK / PRELIMINARY FINDINGS]. The guide was pilot-tested with [N] participants and refined iteratively as data collection progressed."

"All [interviews / focus groups] were audio-recorded using [EQUIPMENT] and transcribed verbatim by [RESEARCHER / PROFESSIONAL TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE]. Transcripts were [returned to participants for member checking / not returned]. Field notes were taken during and immediately after each [interview / focus group] to capture non-verbal cues, contextual observations, and the researcher's reflections."

"[Interviews / Focus groups] lasted a median of [X] minutes (range: [X] to [X]). [For focus groups: 'Each group comprised [N] to [N] participants. A total of [N] focus groups were conducted.']"

Checklist:

• Interview/focus group guide described (development, pilot testing)
• Recording method stated (audio, video, field notes)
• Transcription method stated (verbatim, professional service)
• Member checking described (transcripts returned or not)
• Duration of interviews/focus groups reported
• Number of interviews/focus groups stated
• Iterative refinement of guide described (if applicable)
• Data collection continued until saturation

2.6 Data Analysis

Describe the analytical approach, coding process, and how themes were developed.

Template sentences:

"Data were analysed using [thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke) / grounded theory coding (Strauss and Corbin) / framework analysis / interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) / content analysis / narrative analysis]. Analysis proceeded in [N] phases: [DESCRIPTION -- e.g., familiarisation with transcripts, initial open coding, focused coding, theme development, theme refinement, final theme definition]."

"Initial coding was performed [inductively (data-driven) / deductively (guided by [FRAMEWORK]) / using a combination of inductive and deductive approaches]. [N] researchers ([INITIALS]) independently coded [all transcripts / a subset of [N] transcripts] and met regularly to discuss and refine the coding framework. Discrepancies were resolved through [discussion / consensus / arbitration by [INITIALS]]."

"Codes were organised into categories and then into overarching themes. Themes were reviewed iteratively against the coded data to ensure they accurately represented participants' accounts. A thematic map [was / was not] developed to illustrate relationships between themes."

Checklist:

• Analytical approach named and referenced
• Coding process described (inductive, deductive, or both)
• Number of coders and independent coding stated
• Process for resolving discrepancies described
• Theme development process described
• Software used for data management stated
• Participant feedback on findings described (if applicable)
• Codebook availability stated (if applicable)

2.7 Trustworthiness

Describe the strategies used to enhance the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the findings (Lincoln and Guba framework).

Template sentences:

"Several strategies were employed to enhance trustworthiness. Credibility was strengthened through [triangulation (data sources / investigators / methods) / prolonged engagement / member checking / peer debriefing / negative case analysis]. Transferability was supported by providing [thick description of the context, participants, and findings]. Dependability was enhanced through [audit trail / reflexive journaling / consistent application of the coding framework]. Confirmability was addressed through [reflexivity / team-based analysis / documentation of analytical decisions]."

Checklist:

• Credibility strategies described (triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing)
• Transferability supported by thick description
• Dependability enhanced by audit trail
• Confirmability addressed through reflexivity and documentation
• Negative case analysis performed (if applicable)

Section 3 — Results Conventions

Presentation Structure

Qualitative results are organised around themes (or categories), not around statistical analyses. Each theme forms a subsection of the Results.

Theme Presentation

For each theme:

1. Theme heading -- concise, descriptive heading capturing the essence of the theme
2. Theme description -- narrative description of the theme, including its scope and how it relates to the research question
3. Supporting quotes -- illustrative verbatim quotes from participants, embedded within the narrative or presented as block quotes
4. Participant identifiers -- each quote attributed to a participant using a de-identified code (e.g., P01, FG2-P4) with relevant demographic descriptors (e.g., "female, 45 years, nurse")
5. Prevalence language -- qualitative prevalence indicated using terms such as "most participants", "several participants", "a few participants", "one participant"; avoid specific counts or percentages unless appropriate for the design

Template:

"Theme 1: [THEME NAME]"

"[DESCRIPTION OF THEME, what it captures, how it emerged]. Participants described [EXPERIENCE/PERSPECTIVE]. For example, one [DESCRIPTOR] explained:"

'[VERBATIM QUOTE]' (P[XX], [DESCRIPTOR])

"This experience was echoed by [several / most / a few] participants, who [ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION]. However, [CONTRASTING PERSPECTIVE / NEGATIVE CASE], as illustrated by [PARTICIPANT]:"

'[CONTRASTING QUOTE]' (P[XX], [DESCRIPTOR])

Sub-themes

When themes contain sub-themes, present them as nested subsections with their own supporting quotes.

Qualitative Prevalence Terms

Use these terms consistently. Avoid quantifying qualitative data with exact counts unless the study design warrants it (e.g., content analysis, framework analysis with charting).

Negative Cases

Report instances that contradict or complicate the dominant pattern. Negative cases strengthen the credibility of the analysis by demonstrating that deviant perspectives were not suppressed.

Prose Style

• Write in present tense when describing participants' experiences and perspectives ("Participants describe...", "The data suggest...")
• Past tense for describing what was done ("Participants were asked...", "The interviews revealed...")
• Use first person sparingly and purposefully
• Integrate quotes seamlessly into the narrative
• Ensure each quote adds interpretive value; do not stack quotes without analysis
• UK English spelling

Section 4 — Discussion Considerations

Main Findings -- Opening Paragraph

Summarise the key themes and their significance in relation to the research question.

Template:

"This [qualitative descriptive / phenomenological / grounded theory] study explored [RESEARCH QUESTION] among [N] [PARTICIPANTS]. [N] overarching themes were identified: [THEME 1], [THEME 2], [THEME 3], [and THEME 4]. These findings suggest that [HIGH-LEVEL INTERPRETATION]."

Reflexivity in the Discussion

Explicitly address how the researchers' positionality may have influenced the findings. This is not a limitation per se but a transparent acknowledgement of the interpretive nature of qualitative research.

Template:

"The lead researcher's background as [DESCRIPTION] may have shaped data collection (e.g., the types of follow-up questions asked) and interpretation (e.g., sensitivity to certain experiential dimensions). Reflexive journaling and team-based analysis were used to mitigate the influence of any single perspective."

Transferability

Discuss the extent to which the findings may be relevant to other contexts, populations, or settings. Qualitative research does not claim generalisability in the statistical sense; instead, transferability is assessed by the reader based on the thick description provided.

Template:

"The findings of this study should be interpreted within the context of [SETTING / POPULATION / CULTURAL CONTEXT]. Transferability to other settings is supported by [thick description of context and participants / resonance with existing theoretical frameworks / similarities with other published qualitative work]. Readers should assess the applicability of these findings to their own contexts."

Comparison with Quantitative Evidence

When relevant, compare qualitative findings with quantitative evidence. Qualitative findings can explain, contextualise, or challenge quantitative results.

Template:

"The theme of [THEME] is consistent with quantitative evidence showing [FINDING] (Author et al., Year). The present study adds depth to this finding by revealing [EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSION / MECHANISM / CONTEXTUAL FACTOR] that quantitative data alone cannot capture."

"Interestingly, while quantitative studies have reported [FINDING], participants in the present study described [CONTRASTING EXPERIENCE], suggesting that [INTERPRETATION]. This discrepancy highlights the value of qualitative inquiry in uncovering [DIMENSION]."

Typical Strengths

• Rigorous reflexivity practices maintained throughout
• Purposive sampling capturing diverse perspectives
• Data saturation achieved through iterative data collection
• Independent coding by multiple researchers
• Thick description enabling transferability assessment
• Member checking enhancing credibility
• Negative case analysis strengthening analytical rigour
• COREQ / SRQR adherence ensuring transparent reporting
• Theoretical framework guiding systematic analysis

Typical Limitations

• Sampling limitations: "Purposive sampling from [SETTING] may not capture the experiences of [EXCLUDED GROUPS]. Perspectives of [GROUPS] are underrepresented."
• Social desirability bias: "Participants may have provided socially desirable responses, particularly regarding [SENSITIVE TOPIC]. The researcher's role as [CLINICIAN / AUTHORITY FIGURE] may have influenced disclosure."
• Single data source: "Reliance on [interviews / focus groups] alone limits triangulation. Observational data or document analysis could have enriched the findings."
• Recall bias: "Participants were asked to reflect on experiences that occurred [TIMEFRAME] ago; retrospective accounts may be subject to recall bias and post-hoc rationalisation."
• Translation limitations: "Interviews were conducted in [LANGUAGE] and translated into English. Nuances of expression and culturally specific meanings may have been lost in translation."
• Researcher positionality: "The researchers' backgrounds in [FIELD] may have oriented the analysis toward [PERSPECTIVE], potentially underemphasising [ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES]."

Section 5 — Software Citations

NVivo:

Lumivero. NVivo (Version [XX]). [Year]. Available from: www.lumivero.com

ATLAS.ti:

ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. ATLAS.ti (Version [XX]). Berlin. [Year]. Available from: https://atlasti.com

MAXQDA:

VERBI Software. MAXQDA (Version [XX]). Berlin. [Year]. Available from: https://www.maxqda.com

Dedoose:

Dedoose (Version [XX]). SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. Los Angeles. [Year]. Available from: www.dedoose.com

R (qualitative text analysis):

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [Year]. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/

RQDA (R package):

Huang R. RQDA: R-based Qualitative Data Analysis. R package. Available from: http://rqda.r-forge.r-project.org/