Hi,
I've been doing interviews of expert witnesses and analysing it without Qualitative Data Analysis software as I find it hinders the creative process. I've just been looking at the common features of the interviews and generating some theories from that. Is this loose sort of analysis still a form of grounded theory, or is it thematic analysis or even something else?

For the sake of your viva, I'd say you need to stop and find a label for what you are doing/how you are doing it and really understand he process. That way you can really justify it in your thesis by saying "I used this technique, and so did all these people (Smith, 2010; Zelda, 2011) therefore it must be amazeballs"

I agree with Sneaks. I feel you need to think about what you're trying to achieve, then look at the best methodology before going into analysing rather than the other way round.

It just came across like you'd already started and were trying to work out what you were doing, rather than working out what you are doing and then starting.

I'd go back and work out WHY you want to use a certain type of analysis. this is a good place to work out what you are doing and why http://onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/methodologies.php

No-one here can actually give you a label for what you have done analytically. Doesn't sound like grounded theory, but then doesn't sound like a thematic analysis either. Sounds more like something quick and dirty, cursory and ad hoc. What may seem like a perfectly logical approach to you may not be a view shared by others, including examiners further down the line.
As has previously been recommended, I think you need to go back to the fundamentals - you need to identify clearly your method(s) of data analysis. At the stage of analysis, you should not be sticking labels on methods that should have been clearly selected at the point of research design.

I'm not saying that what you are doing is illogical but, as far as I know, we can't all just analyse data in any way we like, or think it's best.

Different qual methods are used for different reasons and I'm afraid it'll be much better for you if you utilise one of the already established methods than try your own. The examiners will be looking at how you've analysed the data and why. It'll be easier for you in the long run to get this sorted now.

As walminskipeas rightly points out, it's best to go back to your research design and start from there.

I think you're being a bit harsh with walminskipeas... We are all trying to help you!!

To put it bluntly, if you go into your viva with what you have so far, you'll get heavily criticised and chances are you'll get R&R because they'll want you re-analyse your results. You MUST adopt an already established method and be able to justify why this method has been chosen, hence our advice to go back to your research design and the methodology.

What does your design state about methodology? What is your aim? You need to know what you're doing before you do it so you know how to do it, what you're looking for, etc.

How many interviews and analyses have you done so far? Pending on the number, if may be worth having a break and look into your analysis method before you carry on. Trying to find a method that fits with what you've been doing could potentially be a lot harder than choosing one and re-starting analysis now.

Like I said, just trying to help...

Yeah, I would drop the tone with people who are trying to lend a hand.

Also, if you want to justify ad hocery, call it an iterative-parallel approach (see Verschuren, Verschuren and Doorewaard). Also throw some other methodological mumbo-jumbo at it; for example, is your analysis in the form of a case study?

You'll also need a fair idea of your epistemology/ontology which although it doesn't have to, should probably link with your methodology.

E.g. I used template analysis with my qual data because I come from a post-positivist discipline, but was adopting a pragmatic approach in my thesis. Template analysis meant I could use existing theory to drive my thematic analysis (like you would in post-positivism) but also be reflexive about what came out of my data, explore the context in a rich qual way - more like a constructivist position.

You don't have to talk about this stuff in your thesis, but you should have a solid idea of what you're doing and why otherwise you'll look like a twonk in the viva.

Thanks Sneaks, having just looked up template analysis that seems to be the best fit for what I'm doing - much appreciated! :)