Should you take a top-down or bottom-up approach to qualitative codes?

In framework analysis, sometimes described as a top-down or 'a-priori' approach, the researcher decides on the topics of interest they will look for before they start the analysis, usually based on a theory they are looking to test. In inductive or 'emergent' coding, the researcher takes a more bottom-up approach, starting with the data and a blank sheet, and noting themes as they read through the text. One form of inductive coding is in vivo coding, where your codes are named verbatim after quotations from your sources – this can help you stay close to what is actually being said, rather than coming to conclusions too soon.

Many researchers take a pragmatic approach, integrating elements of both. For example it is difficult for a emergent researcher to be completely naïve to the topic before they start, and they will have some idea of what they expect to find. This may create bias in any emergent themes (see our previous post about reflexivity!). Conversely, it is common for researchers to discover additional themes while reading the text, illustrating unconsidered factors and necessitating the addition of extra topics to an a-priori framework.

Manifest vs. latent level codes – which should you start with?

There is also another part of qualitative coding which can be top-down or bottom-up: the level of coding. A low 'level' of coding might be to create a set of simple themes, such as happy or sad, or apple, banana and orange. These are sometimes called manifest level codes, and are purely descriptive. A higher level of coding might be something more like 'issues from childhood', fruit, or even 'things that can be juggled'. Here more meaning has been imposed, which is sometimes referred to as latent level analysis.

Usually, researchers will use an iterative approach to qualitative analysis, going through the data and themes several times to refine them. But the procedure will be quite different if using a top-down or bottom-up approach to building levels of coding. In a top-down approach to levels of coding, the researcher will start with latent codes – broad statements or theories, and breaks them down into more basic observations that support or refute that statement. In the bottom-up approach, the researcher might create dozens of very simple codes, and eventually group them together, find patterns, and infer a higher level of meaning from successive readings.

So which approach is best? Obviously, it depends. Not just on how well the topic area is understood, but also the engagement level of the particular researcher. Complementary and collaborative methods can be useful here: the PI of the project, having a solid conceptual understanding of the research issue, can use a top-down approach (in both approaches to the analysis) to test their assumptions. Meanwhile, a researcher who is new to the project or field could be in a good position to start from the bottom-up, and see if they can find answers to the research questions starting from basic observations as they emerge from the text. If their themes and conclusions then independently reach the same starting points, it is a good indication that the inferences are well supported by the text!

In Quirkos, it's possible to save multiple copies of a single qualitative analysis project, so you (and your collaborators!) can take multiple approaches to coding your data – top-down or bottom-up, deductive or inductive. You can merge the project copies together later, which will automatically merge overlapping highlights and codes and allow you to contrast the different approaches. Try it for free, for 14 days!