Compare the results and prepare a 150- to 300-word summary discussing how the different coding methods employed helped reinforce each other or provided divergent analytic insights.

Part 1:

Download the “Sarah: Diabetes Interview” transcript from the Saldaña and Omasta (2018) Student Resources webpage.

Read the transcript beginning with the question, “Going back to how you learned about diabetes, what sources did you learn about the condition from? Where did you learn about diabetes once you were diagnosed?” on p. 3. Read the section a second time. This time, look for specific words that are repeated or stand out. List the specific words you identified. When you think about coding, you are looking for overall themes. What specific words provide meaning of the transcript? Not all words—specific ones.

Condense the transcript beginning with the question, “Going back to how you learned about diabetes, what sources did you learn about the condition from? Where did you learn about diabetes once you were diagnosed?” and continuing through the end. Your goal is to condense the interview from 1,501 words to about 500 words. This should be a summary of the transcript, not just repeating the same words, condensing to 500 words.

Part 2:

Download one of the transcripts from the Saldaña and Omasta (2018) Student Resources webpage.

Choose a section of about 300 words from the interview transcript you selected.

Consider which two of the following four coding methods (In Vivo, Process, Values, or Emotion Coding) would be most appropriate for analyzing the text.

Code the text using each method you selected. Note: You must code the selected section of text twice—once for each method you choose.

Compare the results and prepare a 150- to 300-word summary discussing how the different coding methods employed helped reinforce each other or provided divergent analytic insights.