Maximizing Transparency in a Doctoral Thesis1

Bringer, J., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2004). Maximizing Transparency in a Doctoral Thesis1: The Complexities of Writing About the Use of QSR*NVIVO Within a Grounded Theory Study. Qualitative Research.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2004

DOI

10.1177/1468794104044434

DOI registrant

SAGE Publications

Link

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104044434

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Domain-specific

• Confirmability
  • A doctoral candidate coding interviews in NVivo or ATLAS.ti maintains coding stripes, an automatic log of every code created, merged, or renamed, and analytic memos hyperlinked to each node

    This sourceBringer, Johnston and Brackenridge document how a doctoral candidate makes NVivo-based coding, memoing and categorizing transparent in the written thesis, though the specific artifacts named here — coding stripes, automatic code logs, node-linked memos — are NVivo product features the paper's abstract does not itemise.

    Supported in partVerified against the source

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:8eca15559bc0 · see in the full table