Article

Qualitative Social Work

0(0) 1–15
To live (code) or to not: ! The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
A new method for coding sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1473325019840394
in qualitative research journals.sagepub.com/home/qsw

Uma D Parameswaran ,
Jade L Ozawa-Kirk and
Gwen Latendresse
College of Nursing, University of Utah, UT, USA

Abstract
Coding is an integral part of qualitative research for many scholars that use interview or
focus group data. However, current practices in coding require transcription of audio/
visual data prior to coding. Transcription before the coding process is an essential
process for data analysis and even with meticulous detail, the nuances of nonverbal
behavior found in audio and video data can be missed. In this article, we propose an
alternative to coding with transcripts using a method called live coding which allows for
simultaneous manual coding while listening or watching audio or video recording. We
compared the method of live coding with transcript coding of text using focus group
data from a perinatal telehealth group addressing depression. Based on the themes that
emerged from analyzing the process, it is likely that live coding can be beneficial in
preserving the voice of the participant especially used within focus group data. Live
coding allowed us to see and hear the participants, an empowering process which
allowed intent, context, and meaning of the words to be present in the results.
Further study of live coding should include using digital tools for the analysis of qual-
itative data.

Keywords
Qualitative research, qualitative methodology, coding, interviews, focus group,
transcription, audio recording, video recording, nonverbal behavior, live coding, voice
of participants

Corresponding author:
Uma Parameswaran, University of Utah, 1825 E. South Campus Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Email: udorn@huntsman.utah.edu
2 Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

Live (as in to live or to die) reads very differently than live coding (as in live
animal). Text can often be misread, misinterpreted, and misunderstood.
Qualitative researchers are aware of these errors that can occur in data analysis
as they study the words of the participants. And yet, audio and video data continue
to be interpreted after transcription, and nuances such as emotion, nonverbal
communication, and context continue to be missed throughout the coding process
within qualitative exploration. According to List (2007), “live coding” is “coding
without transcription” and “not transcribing everything.” List proposes two meth-
ods of this approach: (1) “summarizing on the fly,” which involves listening to/
viewing the recording and inserting symbols for the relevant portions and then
transcribing those pieces and (2) “coding on the spot,” which requires creating a
coding structure and then summarizing the video/audio content in one-minute
segments and checking to see if the code is present. This paper will present a similar
approach that can be used to enhance and capture the voice of the participants
parallel to the process of transcription-based qualitative research. We will also use
the term “live coding” to describe this method.
With access to various technology, qualitative methods have become increas-
ingly more approachable to new researchers and cuts across multiple disciplines
(Denzin and Lincoln, 2012; Flick, 2014). According to Creswell and Poth (2018),
five main approaches to qualitative inquiry include narrative research, phenome-
nological research, grounded theory research, ethnographic research, and case
study research. Interviews and focus groups are the most frequent methodological
approaches used within qualitative research, especially within social work
(Connolly, 2003; Gill et al., 2008). Often these include audio- or video-recording
of interviews and groups, resulting in hours of data that are transcribed and then
coded. The voice of the participants often interpreted by the transcriber are then
reduced to words running the risk of removing the meaning behind them.

Digital coding
Using Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) such as
NVivo, Atlas.ti, Hyperresearch, ELAN, Transana, and MaxQda, the video and
audio data can be analyzed to preserve the voice of the participant. Much of the
current process of using CAQDAS includes uploading transcripts along with the
audio/video recording and coding the transcript while listening to the recording.
Although some researchers argue that with increasing availability of technology,
that transcription may or may not be necessary (Salda~ na, 2016).
At present, non-text data as Pennington (2018) describes include photographs,
films, music, videos, social media, etc. and with using it comes its own sets of
benefits and challenges. According to Pennington (2018), digital coding of non-
text data should still include the following domains: theoretical underpinnings,
types of data analyzed (video, photo, etc.), the scope of the analysis, and the
specific data being analyzed (multiple videos, specific photographs, etc.). Using
digital tools allows researchers to watch/listen to the recording and code the
Parameswaran et al. 3

transcript simultaneously (Salda~ na, 2016). Additionally, using methods such as

videography (Pennington, 2018) allows the researcher to gather contextual infor-
mation from the video clips in order to better situate the themes when coding.
Those who use digital software tools have the option of directly coding video and
audio data (without transcription) allowing for in-depth coding of non-verbal and
participant interactions (Basit, 2010). Friese (2014) suggests that coding the video
file rather than coding the transcription allows the researcher to remain connected
to the digital data. However, much of current qualitative practice dictates that
videos and audio recordings are transcribed into written text before they are ana-
lyzed (Davidson, 2009).
Multimodal documents which includes both text and non-text data details that
information from the video are specific to the research question. This is similar in
“transcribing” the video where the information regarding “the people present, their
physical actions, words spoken, and facial expressions could be described at rele-
vant time intervals” (Pennington, 2018: 20). In essence, live coding as described in
this paper reflects in part these elements with a more detailed process in conjunc-
tion with text data. The focus of this paper describes live coding through manual
coding (paper and pen method, using colored pens, white boards, and sticky notes)
rather than using software for coding video data to further elucidate the live
coding process which can later be studied using digital tools for analyzing quali-
tative data.

Transcription
Within the most widely used methods of qualitative data analysis, transcription is
central to the process. Transcription allows researchers to read and skim the text
much faster than they can listen to or watch the recording (Oliver et al., 2005;
Poland, 1995). Additionally, written text provides the ease of finding keywords or
themes. Methods such as grounded theory rely on this strategy to pull information
from qualitative data. Further, most research outlets require text submissions
which frequently include participants’ quotes.
Transcribing, though it seems to be a “straightforward technical task,” can be
daunting depending on the amount of detail that is needed (Bailey, 2008). The
process of transcribing itself is often “selective,” as it is not plausible to include all
the nuances of audio or video speech in text (Davidson, 2009). The level of
non-verbal interaction (head nodding, laughing, sarcasm, inflection); verbal repre-
sentation such as minimal encouragers (“mhmm,” “yeah, right”); instances of
cross-talk and the data translation (i.e. “K” vs. “Okay,” words spoken in another
language, phrases that are unintelligible) can be burdensome for qualitative
researchers. In addition, during the data analysis process, when listening to and
reading the transcripts, the interpretation can vary based on the cultural biases of
the coder or researcher. The chance for errors is high in transcription, especially if
the transcribing is not completed by the primary researcher or if the transcription-
ist is not part of the research team (MacLean et al., 2004). Further, Packer (2018)
4 Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

argues that how the transcription is formatted and laid out can influence the data
interpretation. There is often a continuum of the transcription process referring to
the translation that is most aligned (verbal and nonverbal) with the audio or video
data (naturalism) versus those that only include verbal speech (denaturalism)
(Oliver et al., 2005). Once the audio or video data are transcribed, data analysis
begins. Davidson (2009) argues that transcription also includes a theoretical and
epistemological stance that should be considered in the description of data analysis
depending where on the continuum of naturalism and denaturalism the transcrip-
tion process falls. However, critics argue that neither naturalism nor denaturalism
is void of biases that impact the data analysis process and the meaning that is
attributed to the participants’ voices (Oliver et al., 2005). Others argue that with
the arrival of digital tools, transcription has become somewhat obsolete moving
away from traditional transcribing and then coding toward coding non-text data
directly (Paulus et al., 2014).

Coding
Qualitative research by nature is a cyclical, non-linear process that includes recur-
sive data analysis. Similarly, coding is not merely naming themes, but is connecting
themes back to the data and the data back to the themes (Salda~ na, 2016). Although
coding is not the only way of analyzing data, it is one of the more popular methods
among qualitative researchers. Packer (2018) offers that coding is the data analysis
process in qualitative research and similar to the process of transcription is not
devoid of limitations. The author suggests that coding also takes away the voice of
the participant reducing it to words and loses the connection of the joint interac-
tion between the interviewer and interviewee. Finally, the limitation that coding
“depopulates the participants” or removing the person from the participant in
essence depersonalizes the process (Packer, 2018: 93).
According to Salda~ na (2016), “a code in qualitative inquiry is most often a word
or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing,
and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (p. 3).
Coding can be done with numerous types of text and non-text data, including
transcripts of interviews, images, journals, etc. The focus in qualitative research
is on interpretation within the qualitative framework of these differing data, and
the process varies based on the purpose and type of study being conducted
(Basit, 2010).
Coding offers “slices of social life recorded in the data – participant activities,
perceptions, and the tangible documents and artifacts produced by them”
(Salda~na, 2016). The coding of video or audio live, rather than through transcripts,
offers this “slice of social life” in a dynamic new way. Things that are often missed
in transcription including tone of voice, head nodding, lack of eye contact, body
posture, and other paralinguistic behavior can help to provide richer, more
detailed information to the audience. In this paper, we propose an alternate way
Parameswaran et al. 5

to code focus group interviews through live coding that directly codes the non-text
data while still maintaining the integrity of the coding process.
Currently, most researchers use some version of the following process when using
audio/video recordings in qualitative research (Marshall and Rossman, 2016):

• Creating and utilizing a semi-structured interview protocol

• Interviewing study participant(s) and audio/video recording
• Transcribing interview(s) verbatim (depends on disciplinary practice and theo-
retical stance the extent to which non-verbal behaviors are transcribed)
• Checking accuracy of transcript(s) by listening/watching with the transcript
in hand
• Using transcript(s) to begin coding (depending on theoretical framework this
could include multiple readings of the transcript) or identifying patterns in the
data and developing themes

䊊 Developing codes based on theoretical approach and research design

(e.g. ethnography, grounded theory)
䊊 Creating analytical memos by the research team members
䊊 Grouping codes or patterns into overarching categories or themes

These include at a minimum of two rounds of coding within the cyclical process.
Much of the fear surrounding moving outside of traditional methods in qualitative
research in the coding process is losing this recursive process. However, there are
ways to preserve the process while adding new methods of approaching the data.

Live coding
For the purposes of understanding our new approach to live coding, we used focus
group data from a study that used a videoconference intervention (VCI) to a group
of women with mild to moderate perinatal depressive symptoms (Latendresse,
2017a). The live coding approach was used to understand the effectiveness and
analyze the feedback of women’s participation in the mindfulness-based group.
Below, we will provide brief information about the data used and the specific
processes used by the researchers to analyze the data.
The data used for live coding included transcripts and video of three, one-hour
focus groups totaling 17 participants who were providing feedback regarding their
participation in a VCI mindfulness-based group for perinatal women (Latendresse,
2017b). The focus groups were conducted by one author of this paper who was
the primary researcher; the others were involved exclusively in the data analysis.
The focus groups included a semi-structured interview, and the process to develop
broader themes reflected these questions. The group interviews were transcribed by
a transcription service using a denaturalistic stance (i.e. non-verbal behaviors were
not coded). Coding themes were derived during the open coding process. The team
individually coded the transcripts using manual coding and met as a team to
6 Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

discuss if there was agreement or disagreement about the codes that were devel-
oped. The main author coded the videos at first and then manually coded the
transcripts as well. This was to better understand the live coding process within
a comparative model. The videos were coded first as not to be influenced by the
immersion and coding of the transcripts. As the qualitative team met, further
discussion led to additional codes, collapsing of codes, or rewording the codes
which were then used in subsequent analysis of the transcripts. Subthemes were
then developed from the videos and later compared to the codes developed from
the transcript. Using grounded theory principles (developing categories of meaning
from participants voice) (Corbin and Strauss, 2015), research team members com-
pleted the thematic analysis for initial codes which were derived individually
(Braun and Clarke, 2006). We then met as a team to discuss the findings; these
meetings were audio recorded as part of the team’s reflexive notes. Themes were
then organized into groups from the individually derived themes to determine
initial categories. Last, higher-order categories were developed in collaboration
after a recursive look at the data. This followed open, axial, and selective coding
within grounded theory. After the broader categories were derived, the coding
team consulted with the primary interviewer and those that facilitated the focus
groups (Latendresse, 2017b). The analysis involved immersion in the data and for
comparing the processes of coding included both the video and the transcripts.
Codes and themes were initially developed using the videos, and then the same
immersive process was used with the transcripts.
A two-member qualitative researcher team (the coding team) was only involved
in the analysis of the data-coded videos of the three focus groups. The main
researcher on the coding team coded both the video and the transcript separately
for each focus group for comparison purposes. The second team member coded
only the videos. The themes were compared across transcripts, and the video
coding to see if differences were found in the way the data was coded. The research
team kept separate notes of the coding process from the data analysis, including
what they found helpful and unhelpful and had regular debriefings about the data
as well as the live coding process. Both members had prior education, training, and
experience with qualitative research, specifically with manual coding using tran-
scripts. The researchers had previously used transcripts as primary data with video
and audio as supplemental data for clarification and accuracy checking.
As we approached the data using both transcripts and the videos, we realized
that some of the subtlety of the data (i.e. nonverbals) would be lost if we used
traditional methods for manual coding. For example, some of the women in the
group brought their babies during the focus group which was viewed through the
video recording and provided additional data (ideas of community and connec-
tion) that would have been missed in the text transcript. The women often com-
mented on the babies and there were nonverbals associated with their babies that
would have been lost which were not included within the transcripts. Since this was
a VCI group, there were times that participants were engaged/disengaged that
Parameswaran et al. 7

could only be noted through video interaction. This led us to using live coding for
the purpose of analyzing the focus group data.

Live coding process

As the process of live coding was explored during data analysis, the coding team
used the following approach as described below in Table 1. Specific nuances for
each step related to use of audio or video data are included.

Sample coding
The following includes an example of manual coding with transcription and the
use of live coding with video using the same section of the video recording of the
focus group for both examples.
The above example (Table 2) provides an approach to live coding in comparison
to the initial transcript (Figure 1) coding that resulted in somewhat differing initial
codes. The above example of live coding used a similar process to the open coding
when using transcripts and similar to the process described by Pennington (2018)
when transcribing multimodal documents. The coding team met to discuss emerg-
ing themes from the codes, working toward understanding of the themes.
Individual and group analytical reflexive notes allowed greater exploration for

Table 1. Live coding steps.

Live coding

1. Creating semi-structured interview protocol

• These questions/answers serve as initial coding schema/themes for the coding process.
• This may be recursive in nature and include additional questions as they arise in subse-
quent interviews.
2. Interviewing study participant(s) and audio/video recording
• Video recording allows for visual and audio data to be coded (including visual non-verbals).
• Audio allows to code for paralinguistic behavior including tone, rate of speech,
and intonation.
3. Watching/listening to the recording for continuity and understanding of the video/audio
recording as a whole.
• Video can be used to code participants’ non-verbal cues (including head nodding, agree-
ment/disagreement, consensus of participants) as well as verbal speech
4. Note-taking/coding with time stamps during next viewing or listening of the recording
• Simultaneous coding while watching/listening to recording based on themes that were
developed from the semi-structured interview—including nonverbal, paralinguistic behav-
ior as relevant to the codes
• Completing analytical memos by the researchers during this period
• Transcribing specific quotes if they help to illustrate specific themes
5. Depending on the theoretical of analytical framework, additional viewings/listening of the
recording as needed to complete the coding process
8 Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

Table 2. Sample coding—video.

Time
stamp Participant quotes Nonverbals Initial themes

10:13 I don’t know how much of this was the format Participants (x2) Community
intended or how much of this was just a nodding building
leader, she spent time going through each of Emphasis on Weekly
our experiences each week and kind of really helpful check-ins
encouraged the group to get to know each Support
other and share their stories a little bit
more. I found that really helpful to make it
much more personal so it wasn’t just the
meditation exercises, it was much more of a
support network. She was really good
at that.
10:56 What didn’t go so well for you? (inter-
view question)
11:00 The technology, I mean I know that is sorta of Nodding by all Technology
part of it, even just now I tried to be participants
20 minutes early to this and I was 10 Frustration and
minutes late, just finding the email, getting disappointment
the link, getting the passcodes to work, it
was more often than not I had, it was usu-
ally annoying and occasionally prohibitive, I
know that is sort of the point, I know it’s
better than needing to drive somewhere or
something like that but at the same time, if I
was like out at dinner, I was doing this while
I was pregnant so I could be out the bar and
having a nice time and I was having to go to
that thing and hustle and I go to that thing
and it’s not happening, that’s super disap-
pointing, the technology was sort of a drag

the reactions and reflections of the researchers, which helped to solidify the selec-
tive codes.
For example, the identity of both researchers as mothers and how this impacted
the lens with which they approached the data and the themes was discussed. The
team also made notes about the process of coding in our reflexive notes, including
things that we liked and disliked in the process of live coding. One of the under-
developed, but critical themes that emerged from the focus group data, related to
the identity of one of the participants as a woman of color, which may not have
come up if the coding had not been done live (visually seeing the woman of color
Parameswaran et al. 9

Figure 1. Sample coding—transcript.

saying it). When reading the transcript, the racial identities of the participants were
not clearly identified. The other dimension that live coding offered was being able
to see what the participants were saying, which was parallel to how they wanted to
be engaged in the group process. For example, participants would join the focus
group late or take a step back to console their baby, requiring the group and the
space to be flexible to their needs—a positive that the women noted verbally as
they described what they liked about the mindfulness groups.

Reflections of the live coding process

The coding team discussed specific themes related to the live coding process and
the reflections of the researchers. The team members kept notes about the process
of coding to better understand the differences between the live coding and the
manual coding process. There were differences in how each coding team
10 Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

member interpreted in the live coding process. Below are the themes and excerpts
from the notes:
One researcher found the process of live coding more difficult while the other
researcher found it easier:

Coding Researcher 2

Coding without transcripts was difficult. I found myself inclined to make notes on
each comment by every participant to be sure I did not miss anything. If I had been
watching video with transcripts, I believe it would have been easier to highlight recur-
ring themes without getting lost in the details.

Coding Researcher 1

When coding with transcripts, I often found myself getting lost in the words and
having to re-read the transcripts multiple times to get the gist of the content, whereas
with the recording I could connect with their stories and could pull out salient themes.

Another theme that emerged from using the process of live coding which made the
analysis easier was using thematic analysis:

Although I ended up transcribing the video, I found the process less cumbersome
since I was looking for specific themes. I would imagine this would be difficult to do if
the structure of the interview or the recordings had been different.

The focus group transcripts were more difficult to follow in text when compared to
watching the recordings of the focus groups:

As I read through the transcript, I had a difficult time having a clear sense of the
person who was talking from just the words or the names of the participant. However,
when I was watching the video I felt like I got to know the person and what they were
saying in the context of their reaction to others’ comments. This helped me to code
based on the themes that were also emerging for the person.

The themes from exploring the process of live coding suggest some specific benefits
and challenges that were observed by both members of the coding team. While one
member found it easier to immerse themselves in the data, the other felt that they
had to be diligently taking notes while watching the video. Given the nature of the
focus groups and the difficulty in managing multiple participants at times talking
at once, the coding team found that the video made it easier to code for themes
compared to the text data. There were also clear nonverbal interactions with the
participants both with each other and their babies that were not noted in the text as
it was incongruent (i.e. talking about the difficulty in technology while also cooing
at their baby) to what they were talking about. Yet, this theme of connection and
Parameswaran et al. 11

community was important to overall research question that would not have been
coded using text alone (Latendresse, 2017b). Finally, there appeared to be a per-
sonal connection that the coding team was able to make with the participants
beyond reading the text found in the transcription.

Discussion
Qualitative research has become increasingly utilized in the fields of social sciences
including social work and health research (Taylor and Francis, 2013). Qualitative
research includes massive amounts of data, making the analysis a weighty and
lengthy process. New technology that assists with the data analysis process is
increasingly being used, making qualitative research more user friendly and nuanced
(Brown, 2002; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; Redlich-Amirav and Higginbottom,
2014). Qualitative researchers are likely using some methods similar to live coding
described in this article using available digital tools as many have functions to code
audio and video data directly; however, little information is available to understand
the process. Pennington (2018) includes various ways to analyze digital data that
also include video data; nevertheless, traditional methods to coding that use audio
and video data from interviews or focus groups still often require transcription as a
preliminary step in the process of coding. Yet, arguably, as Packer (2018: 215) states,
“certainly what is said is usually recorded and transcribed, but can these kinds of
text – spoken and written – really be considered in the same way?” Further, the
author elucidates that it is the joint interaction of the interviewer and interviewee
that is at the core of data analysis and live coding could possibly offer some of this
interaction if the interviewer is primarily coding the video or audio data.
Coding is often a fundamental process of analyzing text and visual data and is
often used with interviews and focus groups. Coding primarily involves analyzing
texts to generate themes that help to make meaning of the data. The common
process for coding involves transcribing audio and video data into text and then
conducting the analysis (Salda~ na, 2016). As one study found, “traditional methods
of transcription run the risk of reducing the impact of the participants’ words by
removing them from both the context in which they were collected and the manner
in which they were said (Crichton and Childs, 2005).” Live coding as proposed in
this paper is an alternate method to coding that may help to deepen the analysis
and offer context to the words of the participants. Table 3 briefly describes the
benefits and disadvantages of live coding audio/visual data used in this paper
compared to coding using transcripts alone:
Live coding requires coding of the audio and visual data rather than translating the
data to text prior to the analysis. This may eliminate the need for transcription in some
instances or live coding could be using in conjunction, addressing some of the diffi-
culties around the transcription process for more depth in the analysis. In reviewing
the process of live coding, we found that live coding method allowed for coding of
non-verbal content including non-verbal participant agreement, the visual of the par-
ticipant (and their visible identities), emotion, the emphasis of certain phrases, and
12 Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

Table 3. Benefits and disadvantages of live coding.

Benefits Disadvantages

Allows way to code non-verbal behavior in the
audio or video recordings
Simultaneously coding allowed for participants
intent and context to be realized within
the themes
Focus group audio and videos could lend
themselves to the process of live coding,
offering richer data analysis than just read-
ing transcripts
The bias associated with transcription is
reduced using the voice of the participants
Do not get to visualize the participants words
which may result in themes that are missed
or miscoded
Coding non-verbal behavior (much like verbal
behavior) includes cultural nuances making
it difficult to have multiple coders agree on
coding schema
Level of detail might be missed when not
having access to the written text
Easier to search for “words” within the tran-
scription versus no way to search within
audio video recording

other paralinguistic behavior which offered depth and preserved the voice of the
participant. Additionally, the context and environment surrounding the responses
that the participants provided was value-additive, offering rich data which otherwise
would have missed underlying themes that were salient to the research question.
A clear distinction between coding transcripts and live coding was the intimate
connection of the codes to the voice of the participants. Seeing and hearing partic-
ipants while noting their nonverbals offered additional layers to the participant’s
text. This provided additional depth to the analysis that was missing from coding of
the transcripts alone. Although listening or watching to the audio prior to coding is
inherent to the process of immersion in the data, hearing the voice of the participant
brings aspects of emotion, intent, and context that offers life that is otherwise lost on
paper. Especially, as we considered the many voices in the focus groups, it was
evident that the interaction between members in the group would have been lacking
resulting in themes that would have been lost through transcript analysis. The non-
verbal responses (i.e. head nodding, avoidance of eye contact during a response,
focus on their babies) extended the themes beyond what they were saying and what
was in the text of the transcription. The text data allow for a focus on the words of
the participants, and when transcripts include nonverbal behaviors, these can be
coded during the data analysis; however, it is very different to read a nonverbal
action versus seeing it simultaneously as the participant is speaking.

Implications
Live coding can be a vehicle to make qualitative research more accessible. The use
of audio and video recordings in the process of coding rather than the text only can
provide context for things that text often misses. As with any method, the benefits
Parameswaran et al. 13

and drawbacks of the new process must be considered. Using video and audio
directly offers a way to code for nonverbal occurrences, listen, and see the partic-
ipant’s voices, and use it to support the verbal content (Chandler et al., 2015).
Ideally, directly coding both transcripts and audio/visual may offer the most com-
prehensive approach; albeit more immersion in the data analysis process. Some of
the drawbacks are that codes may be missed or miscoded with the lack of tran-
scription. Additionally, it may not be the best method for some researchers where
the visual text in transcriptions helps to ground them. Directly coding audio/video
data of focus groups may lend itself to incorporate the intricacies of group dynam-
ics as part of the analysis (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009).
Live coding could be used within the current technological data analytic resources
such as CAQDAS which already include ways to directly code audio and video data.
One study found that digital software supported data storage and management and
to ensure rigor needed to be combined with manual coding (Maher et al., 2018). Live
coding may offer a way to utilize digital software more sophisticatedly beyond data
management in the analysis process offering things that are present in manual
coding. Even for those that are interested in coding without the use of technology,
live coding may offer a way to integrate the non-verbal and paralinguistic interac-
tions into the data analysis process. Focus groups often are difficult to translate into
the text, as there are many nuances of having a group interaction. In this case,
especially, live coding may be a more attractive and comprehensive method.

Limitations/future directions
This study only considered focus groups that used a semi-structured interview protocol
using thematic analysis within a deductive framework which lends itself to specific
themes more readily than using an inductive framework (Gl€aser and Laudel, 2013).
For more detailed understanding of the process, it would be helpful to understand the
use of live coding with individual interviews using an inductive process through data
immersion. Additionally, the data were straightforward and, therefore, were easier to
draw out the themes. Thus, it would be important to understand what the process
would look like when using data that require developing codes through an inductive
process. The comparative process occurred with one researcher coding videos and then
coding the transcripts. Therefore, initially, coding the videos informed the coding of
the transcripts and likely influenced the process. Another limitation is that transcripts
can be de-identified; whereas when using audio and video recordings, the participants
are “visible” to the data analysts. However, this is also a benefit where seeing the
participants may offer information that otherwise might be missed in the text.
Future research should include understanding live coding in a more inductive
process with codes and themes emerging from the data. A comparative model where
two teams of researchers code the same data using live coding and traditional
methods using transcription may help to better understand the benefits and draw-
backs of the live coding process. It would also be helpful to understand the extent to
which researchers have a clear stance in their theoretical perspective when they are
14 Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

transcribing data. Further research using this methodology in conjunction with cur-
rent qualitative data analysis software (such as Nvivo and Atlas.ti) may be helpful to
further illuminate the process of qualitative research. Last, as this is a new way of
approaching the data analysis, the credibility, transferability, confirmability, and
dependability of the live coding process should be considered (Yin, 2016).

Acknowledgement
We thank Dr. Sue Morrow for editing and revising the paper and for feedback that greatly
improved the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: University of Utah, College of Nursing.

ORCID iD
Uma D Parameswaran http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6532-0916

References
Bailey J (2008) First steps in qualitative data analysis: Transcribing. Family Practice
25(2): 127–131.
Basit T (2010) Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis.
Educational Research 45(2): 143–154.
Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3(2): 77–101. ISSN 1478-0887
Brown D (2002) Going digital and staying qualitative: Some alternative strategies for dig-
itizing the qualitative research process. Forum Qualitative 3(2): 69.
Chandler R, Anstey E and Ross H (2015) Listening to voices and visualizing data in qual-
itative research. Sage Open 5(2): 1–8.
Connolly M (2003) Qualitative analysis: A teaching tool for social work research.
Qualitative Social Work 2(1): 103–112.
Corbin J and Strauss A (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell JW and Poth CN (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among
Five Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Crichton S and Childs E (2005) Clipping and coding audio files: A research method to
enable participant voice. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 4(2): 40–49.
Davidson C (2009) Transcription: Imperatives for qualitative research. International Journal
of Qualitative Methods 8(2): 1–52.
Denzin NK and Lincol YS (eds) (2012) The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Parameswaran et al. 15

Flick U (2014) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 5th ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Friese S (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti. 2nd ed. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, et al. (2008) Methods of data collection in qualitative
research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal 204: 291–295.
Gl€aser J and Laudel G (2013) Life with and without coding: Two methods for early-stage
data analysis in qualitative research aiming at causal explanations. Forum: Qualitative
Social Research 14(2): 1–37. DOI: 10.17169/fqs-14.2.1886.
Latendresse G, Patchell B, Hutton A, et al. (2017a) The use of videoconference technology
to deliver an intervention to reduce perinatal depressive symptoms: A telehealth pilot
study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Latendresse G, Parameswaran UD, Ozawa-Kirk J, et al. (2017b) Women embrace facilitat-
ed group videoconferencing to reduce perinatal depressive symptoms. Manuscript sub-
mitted for publication.
List D (2007) Coding without transcription. Available at: www.audiencedialogue.net/coding
wot.html (accessed 21 December 2018).
Maclean L, Meyer M and Estable A (2004) Improving accuracy of transcripts in qualitative
research. Qualitative Health Research 14(1): 113–123.
Maher C, Hadfield M, Hutchings M, et al. (2018) Ensuring rigor in qualitative data analysis:
A design research approach to coding combining NVivo with traditional material meth-
ods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Epub ahead of print 10 July 2018.
DOI: 10.1177/2F1609406918786362.
Marshall C and Rossman GB (2016) Designing Qualitative Research. 6th ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Merriam SB and Tisdell EJ (2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Oliver D, Serovich J and Mason T (2005) Constraints and opportunities with interview
transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces 84(2): 1273–1289.
Onwuegbuzie A, Dickinson W, Leech N, et al. (2009) A qualitative framework for collecting and
analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(3): 1–21.
Packer M (2018) The Science of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Paulus T, Lester J and Dempster P (2014) Digital Tools for Qualitative Research. London:
Sage Publications.
Pennington DR (2018) Coding of non-text data. In: Sloan L and Quan-Haase A (eds). Sage
Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, pp.232–250.
Poland BD (1995) Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research.
Qualitative Inquiry 1(3): 290–310.
Redlich-Amirav D and Higginbottom G (2014) New emerging technologies in qualitative
research. The Qualitative Report 19(26): 1–14.
Salda~na J (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Taylor B and Francis K (2013) Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences: Methodologies,
Methods, and Processes. 1st ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
Yin RK (2016) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. 2nd ed. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.