Qualitative rigor doesn't come from interview count — it comes from a design matched to your question, a defensible coding process, and a clear account of how you addressed your own influence on the data. Our specialists work in grounded theory, phenomenology, case study, ethnography, and narrative inquiry.
| Tradition | Best Fit Question |
|---|---|
| Phenomenology | What is the lived experience of X for a specific group? |
| Grounded theory | What process or theory explains how X happens? |
| Case study | How does X play out within a bounded, specific context? |
| Ethnography | How does a culture or group make sense of X over time? |
| Narrative inquiry | How do individuals make meaning of X through their stories? |
Naming the wrong tradition is a common, fixable mistake — many "case studies" submitted to committees are actually closer to phenomenology once the actual research question is examined.
Show your audit trail. Committees respond well to qualitative work that shows the coding journey — initial codes, how they collapsed into categories, how categories became themes — rather than presenting only the final theme list as if it appeared fully formed.
Design matched to your question, coding process documented, trustworthiness addressed.
Yes, when you have access to it, or we can work from manual coding tables if you don't. Either way, the coding logic and audit trail are documented the same way.
Yes — interview guides need open-ended questions that actually surface the constructs your research questions target, without leading participants toward a predetermined answer. We build and pilot-check protocols before you go into the field.
We walk through your relationship to the topic and population — prior experience, professional role, assumptions — and write a reflexivity statement that's honest without undermining your credibility as a researcher.