Author: admin

Need to write your 10,000 word thesis in 2 weeks? Oh dear! Well, let’s quickly figure out a solution.

Since you don’t have much time, the next 15 minutes of reading should be enough.

In this video, you’ll get personal emergency coaching consisting of 7 steps.

If you follow these steps one after the other in the given time, you still have a chance to submit your thesis in 2 weeks without failing.

Disclaimer Before we start, here’s a 10-second disclaimer:

I would never, ever recommend letting it come to this. If you’re only giving yourself 2 weeks for your thesis or final paper, you’ll have your reasons. These reasons are none of my business and are entirely your own.

If your goal is to excel intellectually in your thesis and get a top grade, then this video is not for you—in that case, you should check out my other tutorials.

This article is for you if you just want to get your thesis onto paper as quickly as possible—and pass.

So, let’s get to work.

#1 Lower Expectations and Drastically Increase Priority

The first question that comes to mind in such a situation is this:

Is it even possible to write a 10,000 word thesis in 2 weeks?

Of course, it’s possible.

It is even possible without any dirty tricks, plagiarism, or a Red Bull poisoning.

But only under certain conditions.

Lower Your Expectations to Zero

The first condition is to accept the situation and eliminate your expectations of a good grade or anything else. Approach the situation stoically and do your best to show yourself that you don’t give up.

That you don’t throw in the towel but make the best of the situation.

Visualize that you fail this thesis and accept that too.

This shouldn’t lead you to half-hearted action in the 2 weeks you have left. Rather, these 2 weeks are your chance to take on the challenge.

Now you can intensively train how to write a thesis in 2 weeks.

And if a second attempt comes, you won’t have to start from scratch.

Treat Your Thesis as Priority Number 1

Whether you can write a thesis in 2 weeks doesn’t depend on whether you can write well or are blessed with other talents. What decides now is your time management.

If you don’t make your thesis your top priority, it will be very difficult.

If you really want a chance, then your thesis must be the only thing you focus on now.

(Besides your health, but more on that later)

Make a contract with yourself and signal to your environment that you will be unavailable for a short time as usual. Put your phone in the fridge in the morning and don’t get it out until after work.

(Please don’t actually put it in the fridge, put it in a drawer.)

#2 Your Research Strategy for a Thesis in 2 Weeks

Enough of the admonishing words, now let’s move on to the substantive strategy for your daring venture.

The first strategic decision you must make concerns your research strategy.

What do I mean by that?

Basically, your research question and the method you want to use to address it.

Scientific papers in social sciences, but also beyond, can be divided into empirical and non-empirical works.

Why No Empirical Thesis?

For an empirical research design, you need qualitative or quantitative data that you collect through a survey or interviews and then analyze.

I would advise you, if you can make this decision yourself, to not pursue an empirical research design in this situation.

Not because it’s more difficult or time-consuming than a conceptual or literature-based work.

The reason is that you depend on other people.

You need to get people to fill out your survey or give you an interview.

Any situation in which you rely on others should be avoided if you want to write a thesis in 2 weeks.

Last Resort: A Literature-Based Thesis?

The only scenario in which an empirical research design makes sense is if you have already collected the data or have been provided with it.

Or any other case where you completely control the implementation of your methods, such as a simulation.

So, ask yourself what dependencies you have in your strategy and eliminate them all.

If you don’t have data available, you’re left with a literature-based thesis.

You can write a review for which you collect your “data” in the form of scientific articles.

The good thing about it is that you can decide for yourself how quickly you get your literature.

What types of reviews there are and what the literature collection looks like, you’ll learn in my tutorial on how to write a literature review.

Not all supervisers would expect you to write a critical review or a systematic review in a 10,000 word thesis.

Your thesis can also address a research question that you answer with an unstructured analysis of literature.

However, I would recommend choosing a recognized review strategy and implementing it step-by-step.

The advantage is that you can refer to one or two methodology articles that explain exactly how to proceed.

All you have to do is follow the instructions.

So you don’t have to waste thoughts on how to structure your thesis or what your research question should look like.

Everything is predetermined, and you save valuable time and energy.

If you choose the research strategy of a standalone literature review, you don’t need to feel bad about writing a thesis that is less valuable than an empirical one.

The synthesis of literature is an important part of scientific practice and can lead to great results!

#3 Set Up a Work Plan to Write Your Thesis in 2 Weeks

The next step in your emergency plan is a strict time allocation. Since every minute counts, you must work with sharp deadlines that you keep for yourself.

To not make it unnecessarily complicated, I suggest dividing the remaining time into three equal thirds.

1. Data Collection (first third)

2. Data Analysis (second third)

3. Text Production (third third)

Assuming you have 2 weeks available, you have 4 days and a few hours per third. Set the deadline for each third in the calendar and stick to it.

This way, you also have a sense of achievement every 4 days that motivates you to keep going.

Now let’s focus on each specific third and what you need to do.

#4 Data Collection (First Third)

For simplicity, let’s assume you’ve chosen a systematic literature review as your research approach.

Literature Search & Screening (Day 1)

On this day, your goal is to gather all the literature you need. Define your search key words and databases and try to land somewhere between 100 and 500 hits.

Once you’ve collected all the hits based on your keywords, the screening follows in the second half of the day. Now read the titles and abstracts and sort out.

If you end up somewhere between 20 and 30 relevant articles, that’s OK.

If you’re below that, keep searching through forward and backward search. You’ll learn what that is in my other tutorial on literature reviews.

Read, Read, Read (Day 2 and Day 3)

Now make yourself comfortable somewhere where you’re undisturbed and read your 20-30 relevant articles.

No one said you can’t have fun with your turbo thesis. So go to your favorite place and start reading. You can’t get around reading. Because without input, no output. The more you read on these days, the easier text production will be later on.

Collect text passages for indirect and direct quotes in an excerpt table.

How to set it up, you’ll learn in my tutorial on how to write an excerpt, where you also get a template for a table to start with right away.

Literature Management (Day 4)

Load all your relevant articles into your literature management tool (e.g., Mendeley or Zotero) and check if all metadata are correctly entered.

If not, supplement them for each article. If you have additional literature that you already know from your studies, add it and check the meta data of those.

If your thesis has about plus or minus 10% as many references as pages required, then you’re in a good range regarding the length of your reference list.

For a literature review, you can rather assume plus 10%.

Don’t skip the steps with literature management, because at the end of text production, you can generate your bibliography with one click and save valuable time.

If you still have time left, continue reading your 20-30 relevant articles.

#5 Data Analysis (Second Third)

The next 4 days you’ll be busy with data analysis. You’re preparing everything for the results and discussion section of your thesis here.

Analysis (Day 5-7)

For a qualitative evaluation of literature, as is the case with a most review types, the analysis mainly consists of coding.

This is nothing more than forming abstract categories based on your material, which consists of your 20-30 relevant articles. You can find plenty of tutorials on coding techniques on my channel.

The goal now is to form categories that summarize the contents of all your relevant articles. That’s now your task.

No matter which method you follow, empirical, literature-based, programming, design science – watch how the pros do it and follow their structure.

Scientific papers always follow the same blueprint. You just need to recognize the blueprint that is right for your thesis, adopt it, and fill it with your own content.

It’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel. On the contrary: Your supervisors want to recognize a blueprint that is common in their research discipline.

Creating Figures and Tables (Day 8)

Create a figure for your methodology section that reflects your data collection.

In the findings section, add tables that summarize your literature analysis.

For the discussion section, add a table or figure that abstracts your results (which are the categories you have built) and provide a small theoretical contribution (e.g., organize the categories in a small framework).

Again, I can only recommend that you take an example from existing research papers.

It is important that you create all your figures yourself and insert them in high resolution into your thesis. No pixels!

Detailed tutorials on writing methodology chapters, a findings and discussion section can be found on my channel or my online course.

Check out the video description for more info.

#6 Text Production (Third Third)

The last third is dedicated to text production. Don’t be intimidated by the fact that you haven’t written anything yet.

In the first and second thirds, you laid the foundation for what you’re writing about. If you start writing on day 1, you write into the blue without knowing where the journey is going.

Normally, I would recommend not starting with the introduction. In this case, however, you have already done all the preliminary work and can “write from the top.”

Open your literature management software and your excerpts from the first third and get started.

• Introduction and Background Section (Day 9)

• Methodology and Findings (Day 10)

• Discussion and Conclusion (Day 11)

• Revision (Day 12)

On day 12, you start again with the introduction and revise all chapters so that they are linked to each other.

Use the same terms, add references where you need more evidence, and check where you can make grammar improvements.

If you’ve been counting, this emergency plan leaves 2 days left.

At least one day is a buffer for formatting. After all, you still have to create your reference list, maybe an appendix, proofread and print your work, prepare a digital submission, and so on.

The last remaining day is your joker. Save it as long as possible and use it for unforeseen emergencies that are more important than this stupid thesis.

If everything goes well and you still have the joker day after completing the second third, then use it for a break. Which brings us to the last point of the video.

#7 Mental and Physical Health Management

As stressful as it may sound to want to write a thesis in 2 weeks – a 10,000 word thesis is by no means more important than your health.

You can simply write it again and failing is not bad at all. Who cares?

Only go through such a sprint, as I have described it, if you feel physically and mentally fit. If you’re already at your limit, then listen to your body and don’t make it worse.

Your health always has priority number 1, because if it’s out of balance, then you won’t enjoy a passed thesis anyway.

Since this emergency plan requires full days of work, I recommend planning them intelligently.

Work with 90-minute deep work sessions and take breaks in between.

In the middle of the day, I recommend a longer break. Go running or to go to the gym – after that you can continue fresh.

In the evening, set a limit that you don’t exceed. So that you still have enough time to wind down and don’t get less than 8 hours of sleep.

Try not to rely too much on junk food and caffeine, but on food that supplies your brain as best as possible.

Over a period of 2 weeks, it makes a big difference what fuel you give your body.

And now stop procrastinating and get started – time is ticking!

You can’t figure out the process of finding articles for your literature review?

I hear this a lot.

The most common question I get from students is this: The topic I’m writing about is so new, there’s just no literature on it. What should I do?

In this article, we’ll get to the bottom of this. To do this, we’ll discuss the 5 biggest mistakes in searching literature for your research.

If you stick with it until the end, I even have an example for you on how you can craft an amazing literature review section, even if at first glance there seems to be no literature about the topic.

https://youtu.be/an5eqrgdd7U

#1 Too narrowly defined search terms

The first mistake students make when trying to figure out how to search for literature effectively is using too narrowly defined search terms.

The results of a literature search can only be as good as the filtering mechanisms you use.

Let’s use a simple example. For this, we need a topic that is so new that there is little or no literature to be found on it.

The example is: Universal Wallets

Universal Wallets are storage places for digital valuables. Maybe you have your own digital wallet to store cryptocurrencies or NFTs in.

In a Universal Wallet, however, you can store not only NFTs and coins but also other things like digital identity documents or other proofs of your identity.

Boolean Operators

For searching in literature databases, finding literature can be as simple as entering search terms. Using Boolean operators can help you to be more effective in your search.

If you are doing a systematic search process that you want to document in your methods section, this is an absolute must, because it ensures replicability.

But even if you keep your search terms for yourself and write a “regular” literature review section, Boolean operators can help you big time.

Especially the “OR” operator. For example, with “Universal Wallets,” you would get a low number of hits for the search term “Universal Wallet” in most databases.

In Google Scholar, however, an algorithm automatically combines your search term with synonyms and also gives you the next best results.

But if you’re searching on another database, that’s of no help to you.

Through the Google Scholar search results, though, I came across synonyms that I would never have searched for.

Wireless Wallets, Cloud Wallets, Electronic Wallets, Hardware Wallets, Wallet System, and Mobile Wallet seem to be related terms.

From this, you could make the search string “wireless” OR “cloud” OR “electronic” OR “hardware” OR “mobile” AND “wallet” for your database search on Scopus, Web of Science and so on.

You’d have to search for Wallet System separately or use brackets to include the term “wallet system.” It’s just a bit cumbersome because here “wallet” is the first word and not the second.

Forward and Backward Search

If a refined database search yields no results, then you need to delve into some other tricks.

With a forward and backward search, you can find the sources upon which the few hits you did find are based, or sources that have cited them afterwards.

The best hit for the term “Universal Wallet” was the paper “Universal Wallets” by Jorgensen and Beck (2021). For the backward search, we simply look at the bibliography and see what we can find there.

Ha!

One paper cited there uses the term “Digital Wallet.” That’s something I could have thought of by myself.

But most often, when finding literature, I do not.

Now, searching for “Digital Wallet” yields endless results. A digital wallet is, of course, not what is meant by “Universal Wallet,” but it is still a related technology.

Thus, it’s perfectly feasible to build on the term “Digital Wallet” to describe what exactly is new about a “Universal Wallet” and why we cannot simply transfer the research on digital wallets to this more nuanced version of the technology.

#2 Inappropriate Databases for Finding Literature

The search terms are one thing. But if the database you are searching on simply does not cover enough sources, then even the best search terms and operators won’t help.

When you use databases, primarily use those in which the research of your own discipline is indexed.

A medical researcher searches on PubMed, a computer scientist on IEEE, and a psychologist on PsycNet. However, sometimes it pays to look beyond the confines of a discipline.

So make sure you also check out interdisciplinary databases. This could be something like Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science.

Or you could look directly into another discipline if you already have an idea of who else might be interested in your topic outside your research field.

The more you can cover with your databases, the better. In the worst case, you find nothing there. But at least you’ve tried.

#3 Old Wine in New Bottles

Regarding “Universal Wallets,” there is certainly a difference compared to “Digital Wallets” or the good old-fashioned wallet.

However, this may not always be the case with other terms.

Take, for example, the topic of Digital Transformation.

The term has only been a trend topic for a few years, and since then, there has been a lot of research on it.

But what’s actually new about it?

Haven’t companies been introducing technology to improve their processes for 50 years?

Yes, they have. And there’s plenty of research literature on that. It’s just not found under the label “Digital Transformation.”

But if you search for “IT-enabled Organizational Transformation,” you get some hits from the last millennium!

And these hits might be relevant for someone wanting to study Digital Transformation.

So, when it comes to your topic, ask yourself: Is the topic really as new as the term describing it?

#4 Too Much Description

This mistake deals with the goal of your literature search. You want to write a literature review section on your topic and diligently cite relevant literature.

This approach isn’t necessarily wrong.

But you write a truly excellent literature section when you change your goal.

A poor literature review section merely recounts research on a topic but fails to gather enough relevant literature.

A mediocre literature review section manages to do so, but only describes what has been researched on the topic.

A fantastic literature review section gathers relevant literature, explains what has been done so far, and critiques or interprets what this means.

So, especially with a new topic, don’t focus too much on finding literature and citing every single source that somewhat fits the topic.

Instead, try to develop your own argument using a handful of relevant findings. For example, you could explain the difference between the new term and existing ones.

Or you could further develop the argument you used for motivation in your introduction.

We’ll look at an example of this at the end of the video.

#5 Your Doughnut Has No Hole

If you’re writing a non-systematic literature review section, completeness is not a criterion. So your “cheese” of literature can have holes, as long as you develop an exciting argument.

But if you have a sweet tooth, try imagining the metaphor of a doughnut.

Let’s say you’ve convinced me, and your topic is indeed so new that there’s little research on it. And Finding literature isn’t always straightforward.

What you can do then is not look for the hole in the middle, but for the surrounding dough. What are the terms and phenomena that are closely related to your topic?

Work your way through the databases, gathering literature on somewhat broader topics and terms, and approach the doughnut’s hole argumentatively.

For “Universal Wallets,” you could start with the topic of Digital Wallets, explain what Crypto-Wallets are, and from there move on to Universal Wallets.

An Example for a Literature Chapter on a “Brand New” Topic

As luck would have it, I found an excellent example for you. In their paper on “Universal Wallets,” Jörgensen and Beck (2021) did almost exactly that.

They start not with the topic of Digital Wallets but directly with Crypto-Wallets. That’s how they begin their literature review section.

When it comes to “Universal Wallets,” they continue to cite literature.

But if we take a closer look, we realize that this literature has nothing directly to do with the term.

The chapter is a perfect doughnut!

The first source they cite is titled “Digital Lifestyle.” This source is somewhat more broadly related to the topic.

Then, the authors cite sources on “The Token Economy” and “Identity Ecosystems.” These two sources are closer to “Universal Wallets,” but neither directly refers to it.

Further sources revolve around “Blockchain Identity Management Systems” and “The potential of blockchain in education and health care.”

The last source is a report from the World Wide Web Consortium on “Universal Wallets.” When the academic literature is not yet extensive, reports from industry can also be helpful.

From this example, you can see how to write a literature review section on a topic without using a single academic source on that topic!

Avoiding the 5 mistakes I mentioned have taught you how to search literature effectively.

So from now on, “My topic is too new” is no longer an excuse. And if you meet someone who uses this excuse in your presence, send them this article! 🙂

Are you feeling completely overwhelmed and don’t know how to start your literature review?

On top of that, time is running out, and you can’t afford to spend hours searching through various databases?

Fortunately, there are new, smart AI tools that are revolutionizing the world of scientific research.

In this article, I’ll show you the top 4 AI tools currently available that will help you write your literature review faster than ever before.

And I’m not talking about days—I’m talking about minutes! Let’s dive into how to write a literature review with AI!

#1 Paperdigest.org

If you’re in search of relevant publications on a specific topic, then paperdigest.org is the perfect tool for you.

You can easily input the subject of your research, for example, “Organizational Identity,” and with just one click, you’ll receive a comprehensive list of references for that theory.

The best part is that you have the option to choose: you can decide whether you want to see all the recent papers from the past year, the last five years, or all available papers.

Here, you need to tailor your search strategy to the goal of your literature review.

Goal: Explain a Theory

If this is your goal, I recommend selecting all available papers without any time restrictions and then working your way towards the more recent works.

If you’re writing a chapter about an established theory, you should never neglect foundational papers. These can be several decades old.

The AI tool provides you with an overview of how the theory has evolved over time and how you can narrate the theory’s development.

However, always incorporate your specific research question and your own argument while writing.

What you definitely don’t want is a theory chapter that sounds like it was generated by AI and reads like a Wikipedia article.

Goal: Review the Current State of Research

If this is your goal, then set the parameters to limit the selection to papers from the last 2-3 years. If the results become too sparse, gradually expand the time frame.

But don’t forget to check if there might be an extremely important paper that stands out. You can identify this by the number of citations.

You can selectively complement your literature selection from the last 2-3 years with these seminal papers.

What Else Can the Tool Do for You?

But that’s not all.

Paperdigest not only provides a list of papers but also summaries of these works.

You can create up to 5 summaries for free each day. If you need more, you can get the full version, which currently costs about 10 dollars per month (as of September 2023).

Remember to export or save the list of papers, as it can serve as a starting point for your further work in your literature review.

Paperdigest is best suited for when you’re not sure where to start with your literature review.

This way, you’ll get a summary of the most important and influential works on your topic. From there, you can continue your review.

At this point, I would like to remind you that you should not blindly use Paperdigest or any other of the following tools.

They are currently the best tools on the market, but they are not perfect yet. The AI in this field is just getting started and is constantly evolving.

The quality of your literature review still depends on you and how well you can connect the literature with your own argument and an original research question.

#2 Elicit.org

Thanks to Paperdigest, you now have an overview of your topic.

As you read the papers, make note of all the questions that come to your mind.

And now, our next tool comes into play: Elicit.org (which is currently free to use).

There is also a newer version available on elicit.com, but for the purposes I’m showing you, you should use elicit.org.

When you go to elicit.org, you can ask the tool a research question or enter all the questions that came to your mind while reading the papers.

Let’s take an example.

Let’s say you want to explain the theoretical concept of organizational identity in your literature review. Simply ask elicit: “What is organizational identity?”

And you’ll instantly receive a list of relevant sources.

If you sort them by citations, the most relevant articles will be displayed. Or you can sort them by year so that the most recent papers appear at the top.

If you click on the question box again, you can click on “Brainstorm more questions,” and you’ll be presented with additional questions related to your topic.

For example: “What are the components of organizational identity?” or “How does organizational identity affect employee engagement?” And you can again view relevant sources for these questions.

By doing this, you can delve even deeper into your topic and conduct an excellent literature search for your review.

One of the best features is also that you can display a summary of the abstract to quickly assess its relevance to your work.

Furthermore, you can view additional details of the papers, such as the number of study participants, interventions, and results.

This is especially handy if you want to examine papers based on their methodology.

#3 Litmaps.com

Would you like to have a visual overview of research literature? This could be especially interesting if your entire work is a systematic review and you want to create visual representations.

In this case, the tool “Litmaps” comes into play (the free version, in my opinion, is sufficient).

With Litmaps, you can see the order in which the literature was published, how it is interconnected, and how it relates to each other.

Furthermore, the tool provides recommendations for additional papers you could include based on this information.

Here, you get a comprehensive overview of the current state of research and can be confident that the sources are relevant to your topic.

Litmaps also only displays papers that have been cited multiple times. This ensures that these works are important to other researchers as well.

Because what Litmaps represents are called citation networks. A paper is a node, and the connections between papers are the references made between them.

When you select a specific paper, you can see all the works connected to the original paper.

When you click on a paper, you get a summary, references, citations, and other works strongly related to the topic.

This makes it easier for you to select and delve into relevant literature, and it can enrich your literature review with a compelling visualization.

#4 jenny.ai

The next tool is truly next level because it practically writes the review for you.

Here, you’re quickly entering the gray area between AI being a helpful tool and plagiarism, but we’ll discuss how to handle this at the end of the video.

With jenny.ai, you’ve never written a literature review as quickly before.

Generating text with Jenni.ai

After logging in, you can create a new document. Let’s say you’re working on a literature review, in which you’re using organizational identity as a theory.

Immediately, you’ll receive suggestions on how to start. If you like a suggestion, you can accept it, and Jenni AI will formulate the next sentence based on that. However, you can also ask for more suggestions until you’re satisfied.

Furthermore, you can introduce your own ideas into the tool to steer the text in a specific direction. Jenni AI can then continue to work based on this input and provide you with further text suggestions.

When it comes to citations, the tool is quite helpful as well. Currently, this is a weakness of many other tools, such as ChatGPT.

Suppose you want to include a citation. You simply highlight the relevant text, click on “Cite,” and Jenni AI will search various sources for relevant publications to support the sentence.

You can then easily add the desired citation. However, please note that you should verify the accuracy of your citations and the suggested sources. I cannot stress this enough, but you are responsible for doing so.

Jenny AI also offers various citation styles to choose from. My preferred style is APA, where the reference is placed in parentheses in the text. However, Jenni AI offers flexibility, allowing you to choose your citation style based on your supervisor’s requirements or the preferences in your research discipline.

Ask Jenny

Another really great feature is the chat function.

With a click on “Ask Jenny,” you can ask Jenny to perform various tasks for you. Think of this function as ChatGPT but optimized for research.

For instance, you can ask for headings for your subchapters, and you’ll receive an outline to which text will be automatically generated. It really can’t get any easier than this.

Jenny AI is genuinely impressive when it comes to writing.

Unfortunately, this convenience comes with a price, but it’s still quite reasonable, in my opinion.

With the free version, the AI generates up to 200 words per day. If you need more words, you’re looking at 20 dollars per month (as of September 2023).

You can get 20% off if you use my code SHRIBE20.

My Assessment of Literature Reviews with AI Tools

AI tools are here to stay.

From my perspective, it doesn’t make much sense to ignore or refrain from using them just because they are new. However, that doesn’t mean you can skip critical thinking.

Even with AI tools, your literature review will only be as good as your ability to understand and utilize this new technology.

The four AI-powered tools mentioned here can help you find relevant sources, create summaries, and enhance your literature research.

Of course, this also doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t read for yourself and become an expert in the subject of your research. It would be embarrassing if you were asked a substantive question about your work, and you couldn’t provide an answer.

Don’t leave the thinking to AI, but rather delegate repetitive tasks to it. Use the time you free up not to scroll through social media but to invest your cognitive resources in creative thinking that enhances your academic work.

As always, what we discussed today also means that you should be transparent about your use of AI. Describe in your methodology section or declaration how and which tools you used as aids.

Having gone through the steps, you now know how to write a literature review with AI!

For more on this topic, refer to my ChatGPT plagiarism video.

Developing an interview guide for qualitative research projects can be overwhelming at first.

How should you structure the guide?

How do you translate a theory into specific questions?

And what is the difference between open interviews, semi-structured, and structured interview guides?

Help is on the way.

Because in this article, I want to answer all these questions and provide you with a comprehensive tutorial that will allow you to create your interview guide in no time.

To ensure that this video is not just semi-structured like your guide, I have divided the process of creating an interview guide into 5 steps that are easy for you to follow.

By giving you concrete examples for each part of your guide, your interview preparation will become the foundation for an outstanding qualitative research project.

#1 Developing an Interview Guide: Use an established formula

When developing an interview guide for qualitative research projects, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. The structure for such a guide almost always looks the same. Here’s how it goes.

Before the Interview

The first element of developing an interview guide for qualitative research includes some instructions for you as the interviewer. These are essentially “director’s notes” that you can follow to initiate the interview.

#1 Introduce yourself

This includes your name, age, and the role in which you are conducting the interview.

#2 Thank the interviewee for participating

Interviewees allocate valuable time from their work or even personal life to answer your questions. You shouldn’t miss the opportunity to sincerely express your gratitude.

#3 Provide a brief hint about the research objective

However, you shouldn’t disclose the specific details or research question in advance, as you don’t want to impose any biases on your interviewee. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to give the interviewee some context so they have a rough idea of why they are part of the study.

If you’re unsure, you can also preformulate and read this hint about the research objective. Of course, you can also deliver it freely, but only if you are very confident.

#4 Information on anonymous data handling

Here, you can provide the following information:

“The audio data from this interview will be recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and aggregated. The results will be prepared as part of a study at XYZ University. Recordings will be deleted from all devices upon completion of the study.”

And, of course, you should follow through with this!

#5 Obtain consent

“Are you willing to consent to the recording of our conversation for analysis purposes? I assure you that your anonymity will be maintained, and no inferences about your personal identity will be possible.”

#6 Address any open questions

“Do you have any questions before we begin the interview? If so, feel free to ask them now.”

#7 Start recording

Press the record button. 😉

After the Interview

Even immediately after the interview, you also have a small section you should incorporate in your guide.

#1 Stop recording

Cut! You’ve got it in the can.

#2 Express your gratitude for their participation (yes, once again!)

Yes, even after the interview, you thank them once again. I once had an interviewee who didn’t hang up on time, and I could still hear their loud and relieved sigh. Conducting such an interview for an hour or even longer is exhausting and certainly not taken for granted!

#3 Announce a report about the results

Remind your interviewee once again that the results will be nicely presented after the study is completed, so they or their organization will gain something tangible from it. This serves as a reminder that they also benefit from participating. Of course, you should follow through on this and, even if it’s not part of the submission, create a cool PDF or some sort of briefing that provides added value to the participants.

#4 Snowballing

If you’re in the midst of your study and need more interviewees, now is the perfect time to ask if the person knows anyone else who would also be suitable for the interview. Either the person is so fulfilled by the good deed of participating in the study or so exhausted that they insist their friends and colleagues must have this experience too!

This way, you skillfully expand your sample.

#2 Developing Interview Questions

Now let’s move on to the question blocks of your interview guide. The first block is typical for all interviews interviews, regardless of the topic.

It is all about getting to know the interviewee.

Block 1: Personal and Organizational Information

If your interviewee is not representing an organization or company, you can omit these questions and instead focus on determining their expertise related to the research topic using comparable questions.

How old are you? What is your current position in the company? How long have you been working in the company? How much work experience do you have in your current position (in years)? What is the core business of your company? Which industry would you classify your company in? Of course, you can replace “company” here with any NGO, association, or research institution.

Block 2-X: Open Ended Questions

In this section, you develop your main interview questions.

A good strategy for developing an interview guide for qualitative research is to divide it into blocks. Each block has questions about your research topic.

For a semi-structured interview, it makes sense to move from unstructured to more structured questions.

However, in this part of you guide, all questions should be open-ended. This means that the answer cannot be yes or no.

Two example for an unstructured question is the follwing:

“Please tell me about your experience while you were working at company X.”

or

“What do you know about topic Y?”

And here are two examples for structured questions:

“What are the core values of your organization?”

or

“How do you typically learn new negotiation techniques?”

Make sure to ask the same structured questions in each interview so you can better compare the answers.

So far, we have explored examples of interview questions that aim at investigating a certain research topic.

However, you might also want to develop your questions based on theory, so you can relate the answers you get to what the literature says or a specific theory would predict.

#3 Using Theory to Develop Interview Questions

The following recommendations for creating an interview guide are specifically tailored to a semi-structured, theory-driven interview.

This means that you conduct your interview with a particular theory or body of literature in mind. You want to explore a research subject to better understand it, applying a pre-existing perspective.

The key factors here are, first, having a theoretical background for your study, which you can learn about in my tutorial on the theoretical background of a research paper.

Furthermore, you should already be aware that you will be employing a deductive approach to analyze your interviews, meaning you will translate certain dimensions of a theory into categories and assign the content of the interviews to this predefined framework. You can learn all about this type of analysis in other tutorials. In this tutorial, we focus on the data collection and not the analysis.

Okay, so how do you determine the theoretical dimensions?

It’s quite simple. You just have to consult the literature. To illustrate this, let’s look at an example.

An Example of Using a Theory to Develop an Interview Guide

Suppose you want to understand how the identity of a company is formed when it operates exclusively remotely, meaning from home offices or as digital nomads.

To understand this, you turn to, surprise – Organizational Identity Theory. According to Albert & Whetten (1985) and Whetten (2006), this theory consists of three different dimensions:

Ideational dimension (How the organization understands itself collectively) Definitional dimension (Attributes of the organization; differentiation from other organizations) Phenomenological dimension (Actions and discourse in relation to identity) The specific details of each dimension are irrelevant for this example. What’s important is that you now consult the theory and break down each dimension into its constituent elements, as described in the literature.

Build on existing interview guides

Additionally, you should research whether this theory has already been used in previous interview studies in similar contexts. If so, delve into the sources and examine the guides used by other researchers. This can serve as a great reference for your own guide, but make sure to cite the corresponding source.

Develop your own questions

If you can’t find anything suitable, you’re on your own when developing the interview guide. Let’s take the first dimension of the theory as an example: Actions and discourse in relation to identity.

Instead of asking this question directly, you need to read up on how these actions or discourse could manifest. For example:

How does the company describe itself in job advertisements? Are company events designed differently? How do top managers behave in public appearances?

Now you can transform these questions into more pragmatic interview questions. It would also be possible, for example, to create two different guides, one for executives and one for other employees. Here’s an example:

Executive: How would you describe your company in brief profiles on job boards?

Employee: What understanding did you have of the organization before applying?

Executive: What impression of your organization do you want to convey in public appearances?

Employee: In your opinion, what impression do top managers convey in public appearances?

#4 Develop follow-up questions

The semi-structured nature of your guide allows you to formulate sub-questions to further drive the conversation. You shouldn’t interrupt your interviewees and should give them as much freedom as possible. However, if they struggle or don’t understand the question, you can refer to your follow-up questions.

But if the conversation is heading in an interesting direction, ask questions that make sense in that moment. The guide is only semi-structured, meaning you can deviate from it. Sometimes, this is the only way to discover truly exciting things.

For the first question, the following follow-up are suitable:

Executive follow-up: Does the impression of the organization you had at the founding differ from your current understanding, now that you employ X employees?

Employee follow-up: Does the impression of the organization you had back then differ from your current understanding, now that you have been working there for X years?

Or for the second question:

Follow-up (for both): Do you differentiate between social media, press releases, podcasts, TV, etc.?

#5 Testing and Adjusting the Interview Guide

The beauty of a qualitative research design is that you can move back and forth between the data collection and analysis phases. For a detailed understanding of this process, you can refer to tutorials on the topic of hermeneutics.

In essence, after conducting 2-3 interviews, you can transcribe or paraphrase them to reflect on the flow and structure of the conversations and the guide. If adjustments are needed, you can make them at any time.

This iterative process allows your guide to become more coherent with each interview. So, don’t be afraid that an interview was a waste if everything isn’t perfect the first time. Prepare your guide as explained in this video and go out and test it.

The rest will come naturally.

You want to apply Grounded Theory according to Glaser and Strauss (1967) in your academic work?

Very cool!

It will be a challenge, but also a very enriching experience for you.

Grounded Theory is not for the faint of heart, but at the same time, it is the most powerful and interesting of all qualitative research methods.

Today, we will focus on the origin of Grounded Theory, the approach by Glaser and Strauss from 1967, what remains relevant today, and the significance of the major dispute between the two.

After watching the video, you will not only be able to participate in discussions about Grounded Theory, but you will also know whether you should conduct your qualitative study following the recommendations of Glaser & Strauss (1967), Strauss and Corbin (1998), or a completely different author!

Grounded Theory according to Glaser and Strauss (1967)

It all began with a book that made its mark in the history of science. This book is called “The Discovery of Grounded Theory,” published in 1967. The authors, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, were two American sociologists who addressed an important research problem in their work.

The problem was that empirical social science was dominated by the quantitative paradigm. Researchers were trained solely to test the existing major sociological theories of that time.

However, this posed a problem because why assume that these theories could explain everything? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to develop new theories as well?

In their book, Glaser and Strauss propose a return to qualitative data and systematically derive new sociological theories based on individuals’ behavior.

The book is now over 50 years old and was written in a different temporal context.

So, if you are encountering Grounded Theory for the first time, I recommend starting with a book that translates their ideas into the present-day context.

What are the fundamental ideas from Glaser and Strauss’ book (1967)?

The goal of Grounded Theory is to develop new theory. Researchers should not make any theoretical assumptions when starting their research.

Analysis and conceptualization occur through the process of “constant comparison,” where each segment of data is compared with all existing concepts and constructs to determine if it enriches an existing category (by complementing/improving its attributes), forms a new category, or indicates a new relationship.

New data are selected through the process of “theoretical sampling”, where researchers decide how and where the next sample will be drawn for analytical reasons (Urquhart, 2013).

Surprisingly, the basic principle of Grounded Theory remains the same as conceived by Glaser and Strauss in 1967.

In addition to theory, a Grounded Theory project can also result in a theoretical model or a “rich description.” All three outcomes are accepted in scientific literature and have their own value.

Theory: A theory consists of descriptions, definitions of variables, their relationships, justifications for these relationships, and the theory’s boundaries.

Model: A model consists of definitions of abstract variables and their relationships.

Rich Description: This is the description of empirical observations without abstraction.

Developing a theory is the most challenging, followed by a model, and then the rich description (Wiesche et al., 2017).

Since Glaser and Strauss first described Grounded Theory, a lot has happened.

Nowadays, there are several variations and different opinions on how Grounded Theory should be conducted.

The fact that so many versions of Grounded Theory exist today is mainly related to two individuals: Glaser and Strauss themselves!

The big dispute between Glaser and Strauss

It sounds a bit like a soap opera, but the two authors grew significantly apart over time. This was mainly due to their different ideas about how to conduct the Grounded Theory approach.

In 1978, Glaser published another book alone, introducing new ideas on how to facilitate the inductive development of categories. His interpretation of Grounded Theory was that the process of coding should take place as freely and without pre-defined structure as possible.

In 1990, his old friend Strauss then published a book with Juliet Corbin. Because their students struggled with the open approach from the 1967 book, the two developed quite clear rules on how coding should be done, following open, axial, selective, and processual coding.

This development did not sit well with Glaser, and a dispute over the identity of Grounded Theory according to Glaser & Strauss erupted.

The reason was that the approach according to Strauss and Corbin was easier to implement, but it disregarded the original idea of free, unrestricted coding. Glaser, by the way, recommended only three steps: open, selective, and theoretical coding.

For Glaser, it was essential to abstract from the data and create concepts that could stand independently of the context. On the other hand, Strauss emphasized the need to consider the context and situational factors during the analysis.

Moreover, theory formation could also be less inductive, guided by existing theories and literature. This was, of course, a no-go for Glaser!

In 1998, Strauss and Corbin published a new book, where they came a bit closer to the old idea of Grounded Theory.

However, this did not help to settle the dispute.

Strauss and Corbin

Since then, the literature roughly distinguishes between the Glaserian and Straussian approaches.

The main difference between the two approaches are the coding techniques that are used to analyse the data.

For Glaser, the way to go is to apply open coding, selective coding, and theoretical coding.

Strauss and Corbin (1998), in contrast, recommend to apply open coding, axial coding, and then selective coding.

If you are interested in tutorials about all of these coding techniques, just let me know in the comments and will make a little series of videos about them.

Which Grounded Theory approach is the right one for you?

If you ask me which approach I would recommend, I must unfortunately say:

Neither of them.

Glaser and Strauss are the pioneers of Grounded Theory, and any further development of the method is based on their ideas.

However, there are much better resources available today to learn Grounded Theory from scratch or to understand it for the first time.

I would start with secondary literature. The best methodological book on Grounded Theory that I know of is “Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide” by Cathy Urquhart.

This book is perfect for getting started. After that, you can take a look at the old books by Glaser and Strauss for curiosity’s sake.

But the book by Urquhart might not be suitable for citation in your methodology section. The reason is that it is a methodological book that explains the different approaches and provides practical guidance.

However, it does not present its own methodological approach.

When I have used Grounded Theory, I mostly followed the Gioia method. This approach is precisely explained in just one article from 2013 by Dennis Gioia and his co-authors.

However, understanding the paper and the Gioia method requires prior knowledge. You need to be familiar with the fundamental ideas of Grounded Theory, such as constant comparison or theoretical sampling, to apply the Gioia method. You can find my own tutorial on the Gioia method on my channel.

An alternative to Gioia is the book “Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis” by Kathy Charmaz, published in 2006.

You can find all the references under this video in the description.

You are new to academic writing and are unsure how to cite references in a research paper?

Then you’ve come to the right place because in this article, you’ll find all the answers.

In this video, I’ll give you an overview of 4 different types of citations that you can use in your research paper and how to do it.

After this video you have everything you need to know about how to cite references in a research paper and can start your writing journey!

How to Cite References in a Research Paper

Citing correctly is not difficult, in case you think it is. The rules and conventions that come with specific citation styles are just a simple technique that requires a bit of diligence and practice.

But after you have done it once, it becomes very easy.

You don’t need to be afraid of making citation errors in first research paper because if you follow the guidelines of the required citation style, you can’t go wrong.

Additionally, there are plenty of useful tools that can take care of citations for you. My general recommendation is to cite by hand until you understand what you are doing and then introduce a software to get rid of a lot of repetitive work and save lots of time.

Now, if you’re sitting in front of your term paper and want to incorporate your gathered text snippets into the work, you should definitely answer the following questions:

Which citation style is requested for your research paper?

Sometimes you can answer this question yourself by searching for the regulations for academic papers on the homepage of your school or department. There, you will not only find the desired citation style but also formal requirements for research papers that are assignments for your class.

If you are looking to publish a paper in an academic journal or in conference proceedings, the website of the the publication outlet or the research paper template will tell you what citation style they request.

But back to the situation in which you prepare a research paper as an assignment. If you can’t find the information online, you should definitely clarify with your advisor or lecturer which citation style you can agree on for your term paper or thesis. This question should not be missed in the first meeting.

If you choose a citation style that your advisor or instructor doesn’t like or know, it can lead to unpleasant surprises in the evaluation.

What are the most prominent citation styles?

Different research disciplines have certain commonly used and respected citation styles. It would be tedious to argue which one is the best. Each discipline has its own requirements. Therefore, it is essential that you choose the citation style that is most desired in your discipline.

In the humanities, Chicago style, which uses footnotes, is often used. Social sciences tend to favour the APA style. Business administration students have their own preferences and like the Harvard citation style. But this is not a general rule.

The most obvious difference is whether to place references directly in the text (APA, Harvard) or in footnotes below the text (Chicago). Additionally, in-text citations are sometimes represented as numbers (IEEE). This is a preferred style in computer science and engineering.

Where can I find a guide for my citation style?

If your department has a well-organized online presence, you will find a guide for the corresponding citation styles there. If not, I have linked the most important guides for you below this video:

APA (American Psychological Association): https://apastyle.apa.org (requires payment, but you can access it in your library)

Chicago: Chicago Manual of Style Quick Guide

Harvard: Harvard Guide on CiteThisForMe

It’s best to download and print the appropriate guide if you are using it for the first time.

From now on, always stick to the guide.

Identify the type of source (book, journal article, anthology, etc.) and look for the corresponding entry in the guide. This is important, because each type appears differently in the reference list.

Proceed in this manner until you have properly cited all your references. After citing a journal article multiple times, you’ll eventually memorize the details and won’t need to look them up anymore.

At this point you are ready to introduce a literature management software like Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote.

Just do it. It’s worth it.

How can I incorporate my citations into the text?

Now let’s talk about the different ways you can integrate citations into your text. If you’ve already written an academic paper before, at least two of these methods should sound familiar to you. If one of them is new to you – great! It will bring more variety to your next paper.

The secret to proper citation lies in finding a balanced mix of different methods. If you use the same technique to incorporate sources into your text every time, it won’t create any surprise.

However, if you occasionally insert a quote that spans more than 3 lines, for example, it not only adds visual appeal to your text but also allows you to emphasize important insights from your literature review.

So, what are the 3 types of citations?

Direct Quote #1

This type of referencing is probably the most popular way to include a quote. You literally reproduce a passage from your source and smoothly integrate it into the text. If you can’t find a suitable transition, you can use a colon:

The concept can be defined as the “perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and generate negative outcomes” (Coombs, 2007, p.2).

(Caution! The examples are cited according to APA guidelines. Source references may differ for other citation styles.)

If your direct quotes exceed 3 complete lines of your text, you should indent them. This not only enhances readability but also serves as a nice design element for your text, providing variety.

However, be careful not to overdo it, as too many of these long quotes may make your instructor doubt your ability to express complex passages in your own words.

This approach makes the most sense when there is no better formulation than the original text, such as with definitions.

Furthermore, the passage should be particularly noteworthy, as you are (necessarily) highlighting it visually.

Indirect Quote/Paraphrasing #2

This method is probably the most commonly used technique to incorporate external content into your own term paper. Direct quotes are nice, but they can interrupt the flow of reading.

Academic papers refer (ideally) to so many external sources that it would be impossible to directly quote them all. Moreover, by using indirect quoting, you can cite more than one source for a sentence or paragraph you have written.

This emphasizes that you have engaged with the literature.

Additionally, it can be helpful to present multiple sources as “evidence” behind a statement, especially when you want to emphasize that the majority of authors agree on a certain matter and there is a consensus (which is beneficial for supporting the arguments in your work with other authors’ statements).

An indirect quote is always expressed in your own words.

This is also known as paraphrasing. So, it’s just a fancy word for rephrasing.

It is extremely important not to copy content word for word, otherwise, you might attract the attention of the plagiarism police.

But don’t panic, as long as you consistently cite your sources and use your own words, you don’t need to worry about plagiarism accusations.

Some instructors are just happy when sources are mentioned at all.

And various internet services fuel panic to sell their magical plagiarism-checking software.

Such nonsense.

Here’s an example of an indirect quote:

If you’re using a citation style with footnotes, instead of using parentheses with the authors’ names, you simply place multiple footnotes one after another at the end of the sentence. The same principle applies.

Adding “cf.” to References #3

Sometimes, references are used as stylistic devices to refer to further literature or similar ideas.

Such a reference makes sense when you want to draw attention to similar or contrasting results from other literature. In the reference, you simply include “cf.” (short for “compare” in latin).

Now, let’s move on to the last possibility of how how to cite references in a research paper.

Quoting within a Quote #4

Now we’re entering full inception mode. It may happen that you want to quote a quote that is cited in another source. Instead of “stealing” the quote, you indicate the source from which you took it.

Of course, you can also research the original source and cite the passage as usual. However, it can happen that you don’t have access to it or the source is untraceable.

It’s also not a problem if you take the quote from another source. On the contrary, it adds more variety to your text. However, you should not overdo it and repeat this approach too often.

The best option is always to find and cite the original source.

It is particularly important not to distort the quote. To cite it correctly, don’t swap words or take the original quote out of context. If possible, try to find the original source.

How are sources listed in the bibliography?

Again, turn to the appropriate style guide for your citation style.

Journal articles, books, or internet sources are all treated differently in the bibliography.

To properly cite the references in your bibliography, grab your style guide or use your literature management software (it does it automatically…) and off you go on the wild ride.

There’s nothing more enjoyable than searching through your bibliography for missing punctuation or page numbers after hours of writing at 11:30 pm.

Believe me, I’ve been there, done that. I won’t do it again.

Conclusion

Those were the 4 different ways on how to cite references in a research paper and now you can incorporate quotes into your academic work.

• Direct Quotes: Reproduce the exact wording in quotation marks.
• Indirect Quotes: Paraphrase the thoughts of other authors.
• “cf.” References: Refer to supporting or conflicting literature.
• Citing a Quote from a Quote: When the original source is untraceable.

I hope you were able to take something new from it and enrich your work with it.

When it comes to qualitative research, everyone always talks about coding, codes, categories, and themes. But what does this actually mean? This article will give you an introduction into coding qualitative data for categories and themes and help you understand these terms.

I will show you:

• the basic principle of coding qualitative data (Part 1)
• what a code or category is (Part 2)
• how to derive your first codes from qualitative data (Part 3)
• the different types of coding that exist (Part 4)

After reading this article, you will be well-prepared for your own qualitative research project. You can directly dive into qualitative content analysis, grounded theory, or any other qualitative method.

#1 What is Coding?

Coding refers to the process of assigning conceptual labels to data (Urquhart 2013). It primarily applies to qualitative data, such as text, images, videos, or audio.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume in this video that your data was collected through interviews and now exists in the form of interview transcripts.

When you assign a specific label to a specific set of data, you begin to analyze that data. A set of data could be, for example, a response to an interview question or even a random individual line in your transcript. Let´s continue with the introduction of coding qualitative data for categories and themes.

Why is Coding Useful?

Coding can help you summarize larger amounts of data. For example, imagine you conducted 20 interviews, resulting in a total of 200 pages of transcripts.

How can you compress the content of this data into a single results section of a scientific paper? That’s right – by summarizing it. In this case, various coding techniques offer a tool to do this systematically and comprehensibly.

However, coding not only allows you to summarize data but also to structure it. Structure can mean that your data is assigned to specific categories. These categories give meaning to the data. You’ll learn more about this in the second part of the tutorial.

Coding for Theory Building in Qualitative Research

New Constructs

However, coding in qualitative research can go much further than summarizing and structuring. Coding is actually one of the most important tools for developing new theories.

This brings us to the realm of Grounded Theory. You can find more information on that in other tutorials of mine. In addition to watching tutorials on Grounded Theory, I recommend watching the video on “What is a Theory?”

In summary, Grounded Theory is a methodology, not just a method. This means that you can combine different coding techniques to reach your goal: new theory.

This new theory consists of constructs and their relationships to each other. The necessary intermediate step to reach these components from qualitative data is coding.

The specific coding techniques employed and how they are combined depend on the recommendations or authors chosen for your own Grounded Theory study.

New Relationships

In the further course of a Grounded Theory study, determining the relationships between constructs that came out of your initial codes becomes important.

Here, some coding techniques are not only limited to transforming codes into concepts and constructs but also explaining a relationship or process. You can find more information on this in other tutorials, for example on what is referred to as axial coding.

#2 What is a Code or Category?

Simply put, a code is just a label we assign to a specific part of our data. A category is like a bucket in which you collect the codes that fit together.

In general, there is a distinction between descriptive and analytical codes.

Descriptive codes can, for example, adopt certain things such as signal words from the data. In this case, we use the language that appears in the data itself.

However, in most cases, it is better to move away from that quickly and choose your own words for the codes (Urquhart, 2013).

Analytical codes go beyond mere description and offer an interpretation of the data. This is ultimately what we aim for in almost every qualitative method.

The codes can have different levels of abstraction. The lower the level of abstraction, the more descriptive the codes. The higher the level of abstraction, the more analytical the codes.

The different levels of abstraction contribute to creating a kind of hierarchy between the codes. This is also referred to as a category system or data structure.

A category system could consist of a handful of main categories and about two or three times as many subcategories.

A data structure usually consists of first-order themes, second-order themes, and aggregate dimensions. Themes and dimensions are just fancy words for more developed and abstracted codes.

As you can see, the terminology for certain codes and their structures can vary depending on the method and authors. Always adopt the terminology from the methodological guide you are working with.

#3 An Example from an Interview Transcript

Let’s take a look at a simple example of the most basic form of coding, which is open coding.

For a study, I conducted interviews with companies that organize themselves remotely since their inception. Here is a response from an expert in an interview transcript:

“The process usually looks like this: Three people who are specifically interested in it make a proposal, and then it is informally voted on in Slack or during a meeting whether the proposal is good or not.

And it was the same with the rules. Three people who already had experience with such rules from other contexts worked it out in a Google document, and then it ended up in Slack. Different people added comments to the Google document about what they thought of each sentence. This went back and forth for about a week. And in the end, there was a draft that everyone liked, and that was it.”

With open coding, I can assign a code to each line or sentence. I would assign the code “Forming an Interest Group” to the sentence “The process usually looks like this: Three people who are specifically interested in it.”

The section “And in the end, there was a draft that everyone liked, and that was it” could be given the code “Collective Satisfaction.”

These two codes are at a very low level of abstraction because they are assigned to only one sentence or line each. They are also very descriptive and describe what was said.

To arrive at an analytical code, we can now summarize or interpret the codes assigned to each line. For the given response, this could lead to the code “Consensus Building.” This code interprets the data and summarizes in one word what the response was essentially about.

However, an analytical code does not necessarily have to consist of only a single word.

#4 What are different types of coding in qualitative research?

The examples of coding qualitative data for categories and themes we have looked at are typical for (1) inductive coding. This type of coding is primarily used in thematic analysis and, of course, grounded theory.

The process of inductive category development is bottom-up, meaning it goes from the data to the code.

In addition, there is also (2) deductive coding. This is characteristic of structured content analysis or quantitative content analysis. Here, based on existing theory, you establish a category system into which you simply sort your data.

The process of deductive category application is top-down, meaning it goes from theory to data.

However, there is often a grey area between the two. For simplicity, I call this (3) abductive coding. This means that the process of coding happens in a continuous interplay between theory and data. Abduction can encompass more than that, but for now, you don’t need to remember more. Some approaches in grounded theory embrace this approach in their recommendations. Just be careful not to mix recommendations from different authors too much.

And lastly, there is (4) thematic coding, as described by Braun and Clarke (2006). The difference from the other types is that broader codes (themes) are used to interpret larger chunks of data. It is less incremental than the other techniques.

You have an unwritten manuscript in front of you and just don’t know how to get writing motivation to get going?

If this is what you struggle with, you’re in the right place.

I will reveal to you how you can truly motivate yourself to write your paper, essay or book – and I mean really motivate yourself.

The pages will practically fill themselves, I promise. 😉

In this article, I will give you simple methods to help you get started with your writing and make the rest a breeze. For this purpose, I have 4 simple and effective ideas for you to skyrocket your motivation for writing.

At the end of the video, I will share with you a psychological trick that will change everything. With this trick, you will be able to effectively motivate yourself for every upcoming writing task. So be sure to stick around until the end, so you can start your research paper with unlimited motivation RIGHT NOW.

The first sentence is always the hardest.

This is true not only for a novel, an application, or a love letter but also for an academic paper.

I will use the case of writing an academic paper as an example, but if you need to write something else, the principles are exactly the same!

Your apartment is clean, hunger and the need to use the restroom won’t be an issue for the next 60 minutes, and even your friends are unreachable because it’s early Monday morning. Your laptop sits arrogantly on your desk, waiting for you to fill it with your wisdom.

There really is nothing else to do except your academic paper.

The calendar on your smartphone reminds you that the deadline is getting closer and closer. You have to start now, or else you’ll be in trouble. Starting tomorrow is not an option. But how should you even begin? The topic is boring, 20 pages are just too much, and besides, the latest episode of your favorite series has been waiting in the Netflix pipeline for two days already.

The thought of spending the next hours and days on something that really annoys you creates an unpleasant feeling, and you feel the urge to procrastinate the hell out of this damn paper.

How can you motivate yourself right now so that you can finally get the work done?

Idea 1: Stick to Your Routine

Do you usually go to the gym or engage in other hobbies during the week? Do you meet up with friends on weekends? Make sure to keep these commitments with yourself and others. If you eliminate the moments you look forward to from your daily routine, your motivation will further decrease.

The day has 24 hours, and you’re probably awake for about 16 of them. Can anyone maintain focused work for a continuous 16 hours?

Certainly not me.

So, make an appointment with yourself. Set a specific time for working on your research paper. And I mean ONLY for your research paper.

Banish your smartphone and all other sources of distraction so that you can truly use your time effectively. Once the allocated time is up and you’ve achieved your daily goal, it’s time for yourself.

At this point, it is OK to banish the academic paper from your mind.

To learn how to work without distractions, I highly recommend Cal Newport’s fantastic book “Deep Work”. It might happen that this book will change your life.

It did for me.

Idea 2: Consider Your Biorhythm

No joke: We humans are either morning larks or night owls. Some people prefer to wake up early (larks), while others love the late hours of the day (night owls).

It’s scientifically supported. And your type also affects your working behavior.

If you’re not a morning person and struggle to concentrate in the morning, why should you torture yourself during those hours? Listen to your body and write your paper at a time when you can concentrate the best.

For example, I am a true night owl. I have never seen the inside of a university before 9 a.m. (phew!).

All my research papers were written during the evening hours. Even if I start at 5 p.m., I have effectively worked for a full 7 hours until midnight!

However, if you are not a night owl, this strategy might not work for you. Keep in mind that willpower decreases throughout the day so the earlier you schedule your working hours, the better.

In either case, you should never neglect your sleep. Typically, 7-8 hours of sleep will leave you feeling refreshed. Less is not recommended.

Idea 3: Set Short-Term Goals

Divide your research paper into work packages that create milestones.

Estimate approximately what you should achieve each day so that you can complete your paper with a steady amount of work.

You can set your milestones based on tasks, such as literature research, writing the introduction, and so on, or even based on the amount of text you’ve produced towards the end of your paper.

For me, the rule of “1 page per day” has always worked very well. This way, I didn’t have to sacrifice my entire day for the paper and still made significant progress.

If you’re now thinking, “Wow, one page per day? That’s nothing. I can easily write 5 pages if I really push myself.” Great! Go ahead.

There are in fact two types of writers out there. Type 1 is the perfectionist who needs every sentence to be perfect the first time.

And then there is type 2, who just writes a lot now and edits everything later. Try to find out which type you are and set you daily writing goals accordingly.

If you’ve set short-term goals for yourself and you achieve them, something important happens:

You become more confident because your mind appeals to logic. If you reach your mini-goal for writing your paper every day, it will be completed after reaching the final goal.

There’s no way around it.

One important thing to consider here is to build in a buffer. Leave several days between the last milestone and the deadline. This way, the chances of not finishing on time or feeling rushed approach zero.

It can happen that you’re unable to reach a daily goal. It could be Grandma’s birthday or a surprise celebration for your local sports team’s championship. For such special occasions, you have the buffer.

That way, you won’t have any pressure weighing you down.

Idea 4: Visualize Your Long-Term Success

When the task of writing your paper hangs over your well-being like a sword of Damocles, one thing becomes particularly difficult: visualizing why you’re doing all of this in the first place.

Questions arise, such as:

• How will this ever benefit me in my (professional) career?
• What is the purpose of delving into such a topic with pages of discussion?

The answer is complex.

At this point, however, let’s focus on how you can increase your motivation.

To begin with, you should be satisfied with the following answer: A research paper simulates being a researcher, and doing research is a fundamental requirement for a successful academic degree. And you have set this as your goal.

Now proceed as follows:

Visualize your long-term goals that writing this particular paper will enable you to achieve. The paper is just a small step towards those goals, but in this moment, that small step is the most important.

• What do you want to achieve in your studies?
• Do you want to attain a specific grade average to work in your dream profession?
• Or do you want to complete your studies to earn a monthly salary that can fulfill all your material desires?
• Are you perhaps searching for your strengths and weaknesses and want to further develop your skills and intellect?

The attainment of all these goals is connected to this one research paper.

So, get yourself in the mood with your favorite music or a well-prepared coffee, sit down at your laptop, and pour your ideas and arguments onto the keyboard.

Let’s get started!

Bonus Idea: A Psychological Trick

As promised at the beginning of the video, I have a bonus idea for you on how to get writing motivation.

It involves a scientifically supported trick that is almost guaranteed to work.

To do this, we delve into the field of social psychology and explore the conditioning of behaviors. What does it mean to condition oneself or someone else to a specific action?

Quite simply, it involves associating a recurring action or specific behavior with a reward. You already know how effective this can be if you have a dog or have observed sea lions performing tricks at the zoo.

As trivial as it may sound, our human brain can also be conditioned in the same way.

So, what do we need to do?

In order to condition yourself for writing your paper, you need a reward.

Choose a reward that brings genuine happiness to you. For example, a large piece of chocolate, a FIFA match on the PlayStation, or a video from your favorite YouTuber.

Whatever it is, it should be truly enjoyable. But be careful – too much chocolate can be dangerous…

Now, take the short-term goals you already know from Idea #3 and divide them into smaller units. This way, you’ll have about 3-5 sub-goals per day. For simplicity, these mini-milestones could also be measured in hours.

Next, simply place the small rewards along your goals. For example, have a piece of chocolate every hour or play one game on the PlayStation every two hours.

What will happen is this: Your brain will associate the activity (writing your paper) with a positive experience. When you consistently reward this activity, your resistance to motivate yourself will decrease.

If you apply this procedure for a few days, you will have developed a habit. It will become effortless for you to sit down and work on your paper because your brain is now programmed to anticipate the reward.

Once you reach this point, the question of motivation for your paper will no longer arise.

You will simply do it.

Now you know how to get writing motivation and can start writing your paper. There are no more excuses.

Start now, RIGHT AWAY 🙂