Measuring and Coding in qualitative articles: Traditional linear and standard methods versus intertextual methods

This study aimed to investigate the criticism by Coffey, Holbrook, and Atkinson (1996) against the grounded theory, claiming that the widespread use of software in coding has led to excessive emphasis on traditional coding procedures, adoption of certain standards, and adoption of a linear coding procedure, which can hinder the process of analysis. For the purpose of analyzing this claim, eight cognitive task analysis interviews were conducted with managers of two regional companies affiliated with the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC). Two different groups were set out to code the texts. The first group used the Strauss and Corbin’s (1994) grounded theory approach, using NVIVO. The second group based their work on the Crandall, Klein, and Hoffman’s (2006) cognitive task analysis approach, using an intertextual procedure. Finally, the codes of the two groups were compared together. The results revealed more coded sentences and more practical conceptual categories in the second group.