Just wondering if anyone has any advise or tips for reading through transcripts. My problem is that each time I read through the transcripts I see so many missed opportunities. I have the participant telling me their story, I ask myself - why didn't I explore that further instead of coming in with a really mediocre question! I am using nvivo to code the transcripts any advise or thoughts on the coding process to how to deal with negativity while going over the interviews would really be appreciated.

Hi Bulbs,

I think it as a common phenomenon that on reflection the interviews could have been done bettter. It is just that when you are interviewing or moderating a focus group it is hard to think of everything and to have the perfect answer on anything. As such I think this is inherent to the process. Of course the advantage of using grounded theory is that you come across these issues while you still have interviews planned and you can then assure that you explore these questions in the next session.
If you have stopped interviewing altogether and you have still found significant gaps then you have not got saturation, and perhaps a few more sessions are required.
If no sessions can be organised anymore perhaps you could write something like a justification for that.:-)

Hi Rick, thanks for your reply. Although I am coming to the end of my 3rd year I am planning to do a couple more interviews. My interviews have not been carried out in the style of grounded theory but hopefully these last few interviews will fill in any gaps that I am finding. Thanks again.

I have the same problem, and to make matters worse, I think my participants are now totally over my project as they're not willing to participate in any further interviews. I think it's also really hard to know what will become important after the intervews have been done. While we do the interviews as best we can at the time, it's not till writing up that some elements take on new and unforeseen significance. Where more basic things have been missed - well, we're still learning!

Yeh, try and get more interviews, failing that, you'll just have to fudge it I'm afraid. That's my grand plan!;-) Will just have to cover off as best as possible, and leave out material which raises too many other questions. It's an inexact science, that's for sure.

Hi Sue, I think you are right it is difficult to know what will be important when the interviews are finished. I found the whole transcription process so tedious and this made getting the raw data out even longer. I asked my interviewees would they be happy for me to come back but I feel if I attempted to return now it would be too long after the event, its just over one year now since I last saw most of my participants. I think they will not remember me!! When I am writing up my findings my supervisor will ask a question about the data and when I see his comments I will think yes, wish I had thought to ask that one!

I went to a workshop on analysing qualitative interviews and the tutors recommended going back to check your interview findings not with the same participants but with new participants to check if your interpretations have some resonance with them. I am not sure but this would depend on what your qualitative standpoint is, I personally agree with member checking but its always the time factor plus what happens if new things come up or do you work the new findings into your existing data set. I was thinking about doing up a summary paper with a couple of points, and to use this as a feedback to participants before finishing the data analysis. As you say the good thing is we are still learning and this is the nature of the interview. It is an inexact science that's what makes it all the more difficult!