Abstract

Coding, the analytic task of assigning codes to nonnumeric data, is foundational to writing research. A rich discussion of methodological pluralism has established the foundational importance of systematicity in the task of coding, but less attention has been paid to the equally important commitment to language complexity. Addressing the interplay among a commitment to language complexity, the selection of tools, and the construction of workflow, this article offers a framework of analytic tasks in coding. Three general purpose coding tools are explored: Excel, MAXQDA, and Dedoose. This exploration suggests that how four aspects of analysis should be supported in order to manage language complexity: code restructuring, segmentation in advance of coding, use of a full coding scheme, and retrieval of full context by code. This analysis is intended to help writing researchers choose tools and design workflow to support coding work consistent with our commitment to language in its full complexity.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2018-04-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088317748590
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (7)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. Technical Communication Quarterly
Show all 7 →
  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Computers and Composition

Cites in this index (10)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Technical Communication Quarterly
  4. Technical Communication Quarterly
  5. Technical Communication Quarterly
Show all 10 →
  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Research in the Teaching of English
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Also cites 10 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.2307/358742
  2. 10.4324/9781410609526
  3. 10.1109/TPC.2010.2077450
  4. 10.2307/358602
  5. 10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.05
  6. 10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.09
  7. 10.1109/TPC.2009.2036896
  8. 10.1177/1094428111417451
  9. 10.1515/9783110220674.31
  10. 10.1080/11745398.2014.902292
CrossRef global citation count: 29 View in citation network →