Time and time again, our clients have to cut words from their theses so they can meet their university’s guidelines. This need to be ruthless with words continues after postgrad work. Grant proposals, book chapters and peer-reviewed papers often have word or character limits that must be followed. Additionally, omitting needless words is just a good rule of thumb, no matter what you’re writing. Short sentences are impactful!
However, writing tight can be extra challenging when you’re a qualitative researcher. For a start, our data takes up far more words than for quant people, yet we often still have the same word counts to contend with. Secondly, our interpretations can be complex, feeling as though they need paragraphs of text to be properly unpacked. Trying to cram all our lovely findings into a draconian word count can feel impossible at times!
Writing succinctly can feel frustrating for qual researchers Photo by Andre Hunter on Unsplash
Fortunately, we at PGPR have years of experience with trimming down qualitative PhDs so that they are the required length and yet still contain the depth and nuance needed. Here are some of our top tips for writing qualitative research as succinctly as possible.
Watch out for written tics
We all have stock phrases that we fall back on and reuse when we’re speaking or writing. These are often overly wordy at best and totally unnecessary at worst. They might include wording such as:
It appears that the participants expressed…
It is interesting to note that…
It could therefore be suggested that…
Research carried out by Smith et al. (2012) found that…
In order to…
Due to the fact that…
A number of…
All these overly wordy phrases can be replaced with more succinct alternatives, as shown below…
Read some of your work back and look out for phrases like this that you over-use, then use the search function to find all examples. You’ll be able to cut many of these back, which will have the dual benefit of getting you closer to your word count and making your work more readable.
(NB: don’t just do a find and replace – find each instance and use your judgement to work out whether it can be replaced and if so, what with!)
Put your work down for a few days
In addition to these common phrases, many qualitative students tend to write in a flowery, verbose way. This is fine for a first draft. Indeed, I don’t recommend even trying to think about word count while you’re getting your initial ideas down. Capturing your interpretations and ideas is far more important in the early stages of writing.
However, if you put your too-long chapter down for a couple of days and then come back to it with a clear head, you’ll almost certainly start to spot unnecessary words. Reading your work aloud really helps with this, so if you’re struggling, try reading a page or so to yourself. You’ll instantly see cuts you can make – and then you can apply that same thinking to subsequent pages.
Taking a break can help you work out which words you can cut Photo by Artem Beliaikin on Unsplash
Trim data
As mentioned above, the data we deal with as qualitative researchers is one of the reasons we can struggle with word counts. Of course, it’s important to ensure that you are including quotes that are long enough to illustrate all the interpretations you’re making.
However, it’s often the case that a bit of data can be trimmed off the beginning or end of a long quote. Or maybe there’s a section in the middle that is less relevant? If so, you can take this out, as long as you use some notation to mark this. […] is a common way to demonstrate the removal of less relevant material.
Be careful here – don’t take out sections of data that point to a different interpretation than the one you want to make, just to strengthen your argument! Data like this must stay in and be considered. However, if the participant says something in the middle of a quote that is just not relevant to this subtheme topic, it’s fine to take it out.
Stay laser-focused on your theme topics and research questions
And speaking of subtheme topics – one of the most common problems I see in my clients’ work is that data and interpretations are presented that are lovely, but not actually relevant.
Remember that no matter which qualitative method you’re using, all the material you present under a section or subtheme must feed into that topic. Similarly, each subtheme or lower-order section should feed into the higher-order theme or section. And everything you discuss in the findings section must be relevant to your research question.
Staying laser-focused on your thematic points and research question will help you write succinctly Photo by Erfan Afshari on Unsplash
While the tips I’ve offered so far are all about trimming individual sentences, this final tip can help you to remove whole paragraphs or even pages that you don’t need. This can be painful if you’ve spent a long time reaching this interpretation, but if it’s not relevant to your research question, I’m afraid it belongs on the cutting room floor!
Book PGPR
If all of this feels too much like hard work, get in touch with PGPR via the contact form below, and we help you to cut your thesis down to size by trimming individual sentences and suggesting larger areas that you may be able to edit down. We’ll be happy to help!
If you’re a student or academic conducting an IPA study, you’ll know that the data is where the magic happens. Interpretative phenomenological analysis is all about inductive work – that is, immersing ourselves fully in the data so that we can explore what’s going on for the participants and then communicate our interpretations of those experiences to readers.
This means that the quotes you choose to present in your findings section – along with the interpretations of those quotes – are perhaps the most important element of your dissertation, thesis or paper. Selecting the quotes that best illustrate the participants’ experiences and that allow you to demonstrate how you reached your findings will stand you in really good stead when you reach your viva or are facing peer review.
There are some mistakes I see frequently in findings sections, so I’ve written this blog to help IPA researchers identify the best quotes to share and present their interpretations in the optimum way.
Select the data that fully evidences the points you want to make
A common issue I see is quotes and interpretations that don’t match up. When you’re immersed in your data, it’s easy to forget what your readers don’t know. This means you might state interpretations as confident findings – but without the data to back it up, examiners and peer reviewers won’t know what led you to those ideas.
When your data and your interpretations don’t match, that can be a problem! Photo by Ian van der Linde on Unsplash
While it’s fine to communicate some contextual information without data – for example, you might explain that you’d asked a certain question just before this data was given to you, or you might set the scene for what the participant is talking about – any interpretive findings must be backed up by evidence. Therefore, once you’ve got a draft of your findings section, check all the claims you’re making about the participants’ experiences and ensure that the data that led you there is on the page.
Ensuring that the quotes you present are long enough to paint a picture
Another frequent problem in the theses I look at is that the quotes are uniformly too short. Of course, not every quote you include can or should be a full paragraph, but in IPA, if all your quotes are one-liners, this is a red flag to examiners.
IPA researchers tend to explore complex, emotive topics about which little is currently known. Subjects like these cannot be adequately illustrated through short quotes alone.
Additionally, IPA analysis is about digging deep into the data – exploring the messiness, the contradictions, the hidden meanings. Analysis like this is often more fruitful if it’s been applied to longer sections of data.
If your quotes are too short, you may not be able to reach where you want to go… Photo by Ravi Sharma on Unsplash
Being truly interpretive rather than descriptive
Building on the above, another common error is that even if great quotes have been presented, the analysis that accompanies them is too descriptive. IPA is a deeply linguistic form of qualitative analysis, so we should be taking the time to really dig into the language that participants are sharing with us and considering how it adds to our understanding of their lived experiences.
Let’s take this piece of made-up data, from a made-up study about junior doctors’ mental health, as an example:
Sarah: I was working 14 hour days, was battling sleep on my drive home every night. I was fighting to do well at work, but when I got home after every shift, I was destroyed. I felt completely laid to waste. Yet I had to plaster a smile on and do it again the next day.
A researcher might state that Sarah’s long working hours are harming her mental health. And that’s correct, of course. But for an IPA study, this interpretation doesn’t go far enough.
Let’s take a closer look at this data, which contains a few striking words and phrases – note that the participant was ‘battling’ and ‘fighting’, and yet despite this, she was ‘destroyed’ and ‘laid to waste’. These words conjure up the image of a bloody battle – a battle which Sarah is losing and which has left her ruined, a shell of her former self.
Attending to the imagery that participants use in their language can help deepen analysis Photo by Jaime Spaniol on Unsplash
Her only defence against the war zone of work is to ‘plaster on a smile’, a phrase which shows that her cheerful work persona feels like a performance. Additionally, a sticking plaster feels completely inadequate for facing the battle of work she has described.
Ok, so I made this data up and deliberately loaded it with language that could be quickly unpicked in this way, but it’s amazing how often participants pepper their words with vivid imagery that, when analysed, can provide a resonant insight into their life worlds.
Your data will almost certainly be full of interesting language, so don’t miss the opportunity to analyse it deeply. Insights like this will advance your work greatly.
Show divergence as well as convergence
Any student of IPA can recite the idiom that we’re looking for divergence as well as convergence. However, it’s rare for me to see divergence mentioned in findings sections. Seeking and discussing convergence is easier and – perhaps – feels safer. But divergence is important too. Why? Because human experience is messy and varied, and cannot be reduced to yes or no experiences, much as we might wish it could be!
Divergence can take several forms. It could be that most participants report a certain emotional reaction to (say) a cancer treatment, and another reports the opposite emotional experience.
If you were conducting a study about bereavement, all participants may share the experience of anger, but for some, this takes the form of shouting at friends and family, while others take up boxing or direct their anger at themselves.
Or perhaps you’re doing a study about waiting for a liver transplant. Participants may attach a similar meaning to an experience while expressing it in very different ways. For example, most participants might describe putting their lives on hold because of uncertainty about the future. However, another might respond to the same uncertainty by embracing new experiences and living more intensely in the present. Although their behaviours differ, both accounts may reflect a shared awareness that the future can no longer be assumed.
All such examples of divergence should be included in your write-up, as they all demonstrate different aspects of the experiential elements you’re presenting through your analysis.
Life contains divergence. Seek it out in your analysis! Photo by Eric Prouzet on Unsplash
Structure your quotes and interpretations to tell a narrative
A final common error I see is a failure to structure subthemes and GETs so that they tell a coherent story. Instead, students sometimes just start with one participant, quoting all their relevant data, along with interpretations, before moving onto the next one.
No matter how insightful your analysis, this is not a good way to write up IPA. It leads to repetition and means you will miss out on showing how one element of a subtheme leads to another, which builds on the first and paves the way for the next.
As you create your PET and GET tables, think about how your findings can be structured to tell a story that best reflects the various experiences of the participants and has the potential to offer a resonant example of the meanings behind those experiences.
You will almost certainly have to keep tinkering with this structure as you write up, but that’s fine as this is part of IPA.
If you’re currently analysing IPA data and would value specialist input on theme development, interpretation, or analytic depth, my colleague Rachel Starr and I offer dedicated IPA mentoring via IPA Insights. We support researchers at all stages of the IPA process, from early coding through to thesis write-up and viva preparation.
Congratulations – you’ve written a paper based on your qualitative study, and now you’re deciding where to try to publish. That’s fantastic! Getting a few peer-reviewed publications under your belt is an essential step in the academic career path. However, if you’ve not done it before, the publication process can feel daunting. Don’t worry: PGPR are here to guide you.
Congratulations: You’re ready to publish! Photo by Yen Vu on Unsplash
Selecting a journal
Make a list of journals that publish in your area
The process of reading existing research and writing your reference list will mean that you have almost certainly internalised the names of more relevant journals than you think. Jot those down, then look through your reference list for others you haven’t remembered. Ask your co-authors for their ideas. Do a Google search for ‘journal’ + your topic. This should result in a good list for you to consider.
Check which are open to publishing qualitative research
This is essential! There is no point submitting your study, beautiful as it might be, to a journal that has never published any qualitative work before. Doing so will waste both your time and the editors’ time, so do everyone a favour and search the archives of your longlisted journals for the word ‘qualitative’ in the titles of published articles. If there are none, cross that one off your list.
Ideally, you want to find a journal that often publishes qual work and has published at least some articles using your methodology. Of course, there are some qual-specific journals out there, such as Qualitative Research and the Journal of Qualitative Health Research. These will always be open to qualitative work, and their reviewers will have the expertise to provide relevant, helpful feedback.
Check your chosen journal publishes qualitative research before submitting. Photo by Yen Vu on Unsplash
Make a table of each journal’s attributes
This table should include the journal’s impact factor – a number that indicates how often papers from this journal are cited and so how prestigious the journal is – their word count (you can’t publish three GETs from your beautiful IPA study in a journal whose maximum word count is 2,000), who the readers of the journal are, whether or not it is open access and so on. It could be that your co-authors have had good or bad experiences publishing in the papers on your list; if so, include that too.
Note that if you are choosing to publish in an open-access journal, your university will need to pay some rather weighty fees, so do check that they have the budget for that before pursuing that route.
Rank journals in order of preference, depending on your priorities
Looking at this information in table form will help you decide which journal to target first. If you have high ambitions for forging a lofty academic career (and why not?), aim for the high-impact journals first. Just be prepared for the potential of a knock-back, and be ready to move on to the next journal on the list. If your priority is to get your research seen by other qual researchers sooner rather than later, consider a less high-impact journal with a stronger proven track record for qual researchers. (Unfortunately, these two things often go hand in hand!)
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that impact factors mean much more than a plus point on your CV. I don’t know of any academics who find papers to read based on the impact factor of the journal. Instead, just as you very likely did, other academics use Google Scholar to look for papers in the relevant area, read them, and cite the best ones, often not worrying at all about which journal those papers are in. So I never really worry about impact factors. However, if you are more ambitious in that area, I doff my cap to you and wish you the best of luck.
Deciding which journals to target takes some thought. Photo by No Revisions on Unsplash
Read through the author guidelines of your chosen journal
Once you’ve decided on your ideal journal, the next step is to carefully read over the author guidelines and ensure your paper follows them. This might involve changing your references from APA7 to Harvard (not an issue if you’ve used referencing software – a right pain if you haven’t, I’m afraid!), cutting a few words or changing from UK to US spelling. Following the guidelines as closely as possible at this stage will save you hassle later on. I recommend saving a new version of the paper and adding the journal to the title so you can revert to your original if it isn’t accepted the first time.
Ensure you have cited any relevant papers from your chosen journal
This is self-explanatory! Do a quick search of recent editions of your chosen journal and include any relevant references. This will show the journal’s editors that you’ve paid attention to their publication.
Write a killer cover letter
Ensure you’ve written a confident and concise cover letter before you start the submission process. This is your chance to tell the editor why their publication and readership need to read your amazing research. Again, check the author guidelines for any instructions on what to include in the letter for your chosen journal.
Sadly, academic publishing involves some rejection. Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash
8. Be prepared for some rejection
Unfortunately, publishing academic work comes with its fair share of rejection, which can sting, especially when you’re starting out. Give yourself a day or two to feel the pain, then move on to the next journal. Keep working through your list until you find someone who recognises your genius and says yes!
If a journal rejects your paper but gives you some feedback, read that feedback carefully. If the reviewers have said anything you agree with, redraft the paper to smooth out those issues. If you don’t agree, move on. The good news is that the longer you do this, the easier it becomes to shrug off any difficult feelings that come with rejection and keep moving forward.
Submitting your paper involves filling out a long, complex online form and is often more frustrating than you want it to be! Give yourself a good hour or so to complete this process, and ensure that you have all relevant info to hand before you get started, such as your co-authors’ contact details and your cover letter. If possible, look through the form before you get started so you can spot anything you might need to ask your supervisor about in advance.
One thing you will need to do is nominate peer-reviewers; that is, experts in your field who you would ideally like to review your paper. Peer reviewers decide whether your work is ready for publication and, if not, what needs to change. It is extremely rare for a paper to be accepted with no revisions, so be ready to respond to your reviewers’ comments before publication.
How to nominate peer reviewers:
Have this discussion with your co-authors before you submit
It’s really frustrating to be 75% of the way through submitting your paper before you realise that you haven’t discussed potential reviewers with your co-authors, as that means you have to pause the process to have that conversation. Therefore, I recommend going into the submission process with a list of agreed-upon potential reviewers to nominate, along with their institutions and contact details.
Talk to your co-authors about which peer reviewers to nominate. Photo by Brooke Cagle on Unsplash
2. Who can’t review your work?
For obvious reasons, you cannot nominate current or recent co-authors, someone at your institution, a mentor, close colleague or friend. Therefore, tempting as it might be, don’t put any of those friendly faces on your list.
3. Who should review your work?
As mentioned above, your nominated reviewers should be experts in the field. I believe it’s more important that these people are qualitative researchers (or at least open to qualitative research) than that they are well-versed in your exact topic. Otherwise, you run the risk of reviews from people who don’t understand qualitative research and will waste your time asking about generalisability or insisting that you should have reported data saturation in your three-participant IPA study. If you can think of people who are qual researchers and also experts in your topic, all the better. You can find people like this by looking at who wrote the work you’ve cited and asking your co-authors for ideas.
4. Make sure you’ve cited their relevant work
Once you’ve decided on a few names, check whether these people have published a relevant paper that you have somehow missed. If you find something important, cite it. Everyone is susceptible to flattery. Plus, if the work is relevant, the reviewers will certainly point out that you’ve missed it, so this saves everyone time.
Make sure you’ve cited your ideal peer-reviewers in your paper. Photo by Daniel Thomas on Unsplash
5. If possible, list more than two people
Bear in mind that your nominated reviewers are not under any obligation to say yes. Academics are stressed, busy people and reviewing is not paid work. For example, I probably review only one in every five papers I’m asked to read. I say no to any quantitative papers or those I have no expertise in at all (so again, do everyone a favour and only nominate people who have the relevant knowledge), but also have to say no to some fascinating-sounding papers because I don’t have the time to read them. Therefore, the longer your list of potential reviewers, the better.
In my experience, if a paper is about a strong, important study and you are targeting relevant journals, you will only need to try two or three publications before you find the right home for your work. The more experienced you become at this, the more likely it is that you’ll find the right journal the first time around.
If you need any help preparing your study for publication, contact PGPR using the form below. We are qualitative experts who offer proofreading and feedback to postgrad students like you.
If you’re a qualitative researcher, you will be familiar with Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis (RTA). Originally outlined in their 2006 methodological paper “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, it is probably the most common ‘first foray’ into qualitative research for psychologists. Since 2006, Braun and Clarke have refined and reworked their 6-step method, producing papers, books, YouTube videos (from both Clarke and Braun) and an entire website dedicated to supporting the conduct of quality RTA.
Despite this clear and helpful guidance, we regularly come across a handful of common errors in the conduct and write-up of RTA studies here at PGPR.
1. Themes do not emerge!
If you’ve ever used the term “the themes that emerged…” or similar in your RTA study, you’re in good company – it’s an error so commonly commented on that it’s spawned its own meme.
Pin badge (now discontinued, sadly) designed by Dr Heidi R Green, “Science On A Postcard”
But why does this seemingly innocent phrase cause so much uproar in the RTA community? It comes down to its positivist implications: saying that the themes emerged, were identified, or even were found in the data, suggests that, if we look hard enough, we can find objective themes which truly exist, regardless of the researcher’s analytic process.
Themes, in an RTA sense, are not real – they are constructed through the analytic process. Braun and Clarke, true to form, say it best: “In reflexive TA, themes are generated, created or constructed (for example), they are not identified, found or discovered, and they definitely don’t just ‘emerge’ from data like a fully-grown Venus arising from the sea and arriving at the shore in Botticelli’s famous painting” (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Is this semantic pedantry? Some might argue that it is, but this edict has become the shibboleth by which seasoned RTAers recognise whether or not their students have familiarised themselves with Braun and Clarke beyond 2006!
2. So where do themes come from..?
They are developed! You won’t know what your themes will be until you’ve engaged in the analytic process, so none of this “we expect the themes to be…” nonsense in your introduction, please. Depending on your research aims and specific approach (inductive, deductive – RTA is delightfully flexible), you may have specific areas of the data you want to focus on, but try to also allow for unexpected insights. And definitely steer clear of topic summaries as theme names – a theme named “how patients use online patient portals” doesn’t tell an interpretative story (and probably doesn’t go much beyond the initially stated research aim). But theme names such as “taking ownership of my healthcare” communicates a core message – a message that cannot be conceptualized prior to analysis.
To put it simply: themes come from a combination of the data, the analytic process, the sociocultural context in which the data was collected and analysed, and the specific context that you, as the analyst, bring to the analytic process. If, for example, Johanna and I were to analyse the same set of transcripts, we would very likely construct a different set of themes. If we were to analyse the data together, a third distinct set of themes would probably be developed. And that is because…
3. You are a tool of the analytic process
…not a contaminant to be contained. Again, this comes down to a question of philosophical frameworks – RTA is not constructed on a bedrock of positivist paradigms.
Unlike in much quantitative research, the aim of RTA is not to control for or eliminate researcher bias – the reflexive aspect of RTA acknowledges that the researcher plays an active role in developing themes. As the analyst, your position, context, and yes, bias, bring something unique to the analytic process – so own it, don’t deny it. Engage reflexively throughout the analytic process to explain how and why you developed the themes as you did. This can be done as a group process, with multiple coders or analysts, but not in an effort to “control for bias”. Inter-rater reliability has no place here.
4. Leave the concept of saturation to the grounded theorists
In a similar vein to “inter-rater reliability”, we all too often read references to saturation in RTA studies. I wonder if this is in an effort to appease positivist editors or supervisors, or a desperate bid to cling to something concrete to guide sample sizes. You might be showing your positivist hand if you insist that “interviews will be conducted until data saturation is reached”. The concept of saturation is that there comes a point after which “no new information” is produced by further interviews (or focus groups, or whatever mode of data collection is being undertaken). This makes sense in a grounded theory study, where the analyst is interested in finding the solution to a specific problem and will use theoretical sampling to simultaneously collect data as they analyse, thus allowing them to narrow down further and further towards an understanding of their new theory.
However, in RTA, Braun and Clarke have been pretty clear on the topic: “…when it comes to reflexive TA, data saturation is not a particularly useful, or indeed theoretically coherent, concept” (Braun & Clarke, 2019). The more data you collect, the more possibilities for interpretation arise – the themes you develop after 10 interviews may look very different from the themes you might have developed if you conducted 20 interviews. You’ll just have to make a pragmatic, interpretative judgement (and possibly be guided by Braun & Clarke’s Thematic Analysis FAQ). Try to be comfortable with the uncertainty.
5. There isn’t just one approach to Thematic Analysis
…although you’d be forgiven for thinking so. Braun and Clarke’s 2006 methodological paper “Using thematic analysis in psychology” has several hundred thousand citations now, and their approach is used across a broad range of disciplines. However, theirs is not the only way, even if it is my favourite – clearly, I’m not alone in this! There are other modes of thematic analysis, some of which have more neo-positivist roots. Thematic analysis’ multiplicity is part of the reason why, post-2006, Braun and Clarke chose to differentiate by naming their method reflexive thematic analysis.
If you are undertaking an RTA study, be explicit about this by naming it as such – and try to cite sources beyond that 2006 paper, to demonstrate your reflexive chops. And don’t forget: be reflexive!
If you want help ensuring that your RTA is working as well as it can, just get in touch with us via the box below. We’ll be happy to help.
At the time of writing this blog, PGPR consists of just two people – Johanna Spiers, the business owner – and Astrid Coxon, proofreader and qualitative expert extraordinaire.
In this blog, you can get to know Astrid and hear about why she will do an excellent job on your paper, essay or thesis. Astrid says…
On getting into qualitative research:
My qualitative education started when I studied health psychology at the University of Surrey, where I had the absolute privilege to be taught by (the now deservedly retired) Professor Adrian Coyle. As well as being playful and practical in his methods (teaching us the basics of thematic analysis by getting us to code Dolly Parton lyrics), he was also incredibly encouraging.
I hear stories of psychology students getting the most brief and basic whistle-stop tour of qualitative methods, but we were supported to complete full projects following the famous six-step approach to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ), which should be on a bingo card at qualitative conferences!
That experience completely changed the trajectory of my academic life. Before my time at Surrey, I was a dyed-in-the-wool* quantitative psychologist – now, I’m so far down the qualitative rabbit hole that I can barely remember the most basic functions in SPSS.
*Choice of wording deliberate – my project for Prof. Coyle’s module involved interviewing members of knitting groups!
On the qualitative projects she’s worked on:
I’ve been largely involved in healthcare-related research, including the stress experienced by ambulance dispatch personnel, the implementation of enhanced recovery hip fracture care pathways (my PhD research), and more recently, people’s experiences and perspectives of receiving medical test results via online patient portals.
On her favourite qual methods:
I’m a big fan of reflexive thematic analysis. Maybe because that methodology holds such fond formative memories for me (being the first approach I was taught), maybe it’s because Braun & Clarke are just very cool and actively involved people, maybe it’s because it’s so accessible and endlessly adaptable, or maybe because it’s the approach that spawned its own meme!
(Go and do an image search of the phrase “themes do not emerge” – and yes, I have the pin badge, and yes, it makes for a good conversation starter!)
On her proudest publication:
I’m not sure I can say it’s “mine”, but I think the paper I’m most proud to be co-author on is one first-authored by one of my MSc students. I work part-time as an online teaching fellow at King’s College London, and while I work with some brilliant students, the nature of the course (MSc Psychology & Neuroscience of Mental Health) and the timescale in which it’s delivered makes it quite rare for them to be able to conduct primary research for their dissertation projects (most will either do research proposals or critical reviews).
As a result, I don’t routinely get the privilege of supporting students to translate their dissertations into articles for potential publication. But last year, I was approached by a student (Steve Siddals – remember the name, I’m certain he will go far!) who was extremely passionate about his chosen topic (people’s experiences of using generative AI chatbots to support their mental wellbeing), and I supported him through the KCL ethics process, data collection, analysis and write-up.
After he finished his MSc, we translated his dissertation into an academic manuscript, which was published in NPJ Mental Health.
Note that you can read more of Astrid’s excellent publications via her Google Scholar page.
On getting involved in PGPR:
Johanna and I first met at a BPS Qualitative Methods in Psychology (QMiP) section conference in 2015 (at Anglia Ruskin Uni in Cambridge).
I was still a baby academic then – I’d only recently started my PhD and was still trying to feel my way around the weird and wonderful world of qualitative methods. Both Johanna and I had blue hair at the time, which is as good a reason as any to strike up a conversation with a stranger at a conference! Turns out, a groovy sense of style wasn’t the only thing we had in common, and I think we both had a feeling that we’d be in touch for the long haul.
In 2018, Johanna recommended that I take over as editor of the QMiP’s “Bulletin” journal and coached me in the early stages of that role. Then, a year later, Johanna got in touch about her proofreading business. She told me how busy things had been and asked if I would be interested in some work. The rest is history. It’s weird to reflect on how long ago that was.
Johanna and I have only actually been in the same physical space as each other a handful of times, but that hasn’t gotten in the way of a solid friendship!
On what she loves about PGPR:
I’ve had the opportunity to read some genuinely fascinating research that I wouldn’t have otherwise had cause to read. Whilst I do get to read some great dissertation projects by my MSc students, they all fall within my subject area (mental health of healthcare workers or therapy-adjacent topics) – working for PGPR, I’ve read about immigration law, peer coaching in the fire service, dogs in offices, and much, much more besides.
We can proofread research on dogs in offices – or even FROM dogs in offices!
I particularly enjoy formatting work – there’s something very satisfying about applying consistent heading styles, table/figure captions, and generating tables of contents to produce a professional-looking document for a client. The final finishing touches make a big difference!
On life outside of PGPR:
When I’m not proofreading, I can either be found at the beach walking my dogs, or on the sofa knitting! Sometimes, I even knit for the dogs.
Ok, two pictures of dogs in a row – but who could resist this picture of Astrid’s dog in her knitted jersey?
If you want to book Astrid for any proofreading, feedback or formatting work, just get in touch via this box.
Here at PGPR, we’ve been helping postgrad qualitative students polish and refine their work since 2018. We love our work and our clients – you guys are dedicated, friendly and warm, and you all do such amazing research. We always enjoy helping you, so in that spirit, here’s a list of some of the problems we see cropping up time and time again – and some ideas for how to avoid them.
1. Dictionary swallowing
Postgrad work is a few steps up from undergrad – steps that can initially feel huge and intimidating. One of the hardest things can be getting to grips with all the new terminology you’re suddenly dealing with.
Phenomenology, hermeneutics, heuristics, epistemology, ontology – it’s enough to make your head spin.
Getting to grips with all these concepts and presenting your understanding of them can be tricky. Making it even more complex is the fact that academic writing follows a particular style and has certain (often unspoken) rules.
Read the dictionary by all means – but don’t swallow it!
A common response to these factors is to write in sentences and paragraphs that are so chock-full of multi-syllabic words and awkward passive phrasing that they must be read six times to be understood. So where you could have said:
Ontology and epistemology are two key ideas in philosophy that help us understand reality and knowledge.
Instead, you will say:
Ontology and epistemology constitute the foundational pillars of philosophical inquiry, delineating the fundamental nature of reality and the mechanisms through which knowledge about that reality is ascertained.
As you can see, this longer and more complex sentence is in no way better. The first and best rule of any writing is ‘omit needless words’ (Strunk and White, 1918), and that definitely applies here.
When we at PGPR see language like this, it can make us wonder whether the client really understands what they are describing. Therefore, first, check that you fully understand the concepts you’re writing about. Try explaining them to a friend and then writing that explanation down. What you get from this exercise will almost certainly be better than striving to write in ‘academise’.
Try checking out this quick video where Steven Pinker explains why many academics write so badly – it’s not just the students who do this!
2. Analytical teething troubles
A common problem with qualitative work is that the analysis needs to be refined further. Perhaps you need to dig deeper into the participants’ language. Maybe your themes read like a list of different experiences rather than a discussion of what brings those experiences together. It could be that those themes or codes are disorganised.
If this is the case for you, fear not! Qualitative analysis is hard, and it’s rare for students (or academics) to get it ‘right’ the first time. Collaboration and inspiration from supervisors, colleagues, research groups or from PGPR can be beneficial for pushing your ideas forward and doing justice to your lovely data.
If you could do more with your data, contact us via the box below and you can book in for some feedback.
3. Not knowing when to quit…
When writing a postgrad thesis, you’re a bit like Aerosmith – because you don’t want to miss a thing. You’ve put your blood, sweat and tears into this thesis, so it’s entirely understandable that you will want to ensure nothing gets missed out.
Since the thesis is your baby, it might be hard to determine what needs to be included and what is less essential.
Additionally, many of our clients have trouble trusting that readers are paying attention to their work, which means they can repeat the same ideas and concepts, in the same level of detail, many times throughout their thesis.
If you’re struggling with your word count, put your thesis down for a bit. Returning to it with fresh eyes will help you spot areas you can cut out or points you’ve repeated.
Plus, did you know that PGPR offers a word reduction service? We can cut up to 20% from your work for a small additional fee when you book in for proofreading. Another pair of eyes can be useful in murdering those darlings and getting your work as sharp and shiny as a diamond.
The table of contents (or the ToC) can be a puzzling beast to get right. Page numbers will keep shifting as you keep adding to your masterpiece. Headings and subheadings shift around and get amended – and many of our clients think they need to deal with this manually.
Here’s the fantastic news – you can leave your ToC to us entirely. With just a few simple clicks and highlights, our formatting whizz Astrid can create an interactive table of contents that you can update when you amend your thesis.
If you’re coming unstuck with your ToC, book in for our formatting service and we will do all the heavy lifting for you.
Look – we get it. Time goes quickly, life is hectic. All of a sudden, your postgrad deadline is only two weeks away, and you still haven’t booked that brilliant proofreading and feedback service you heard about. (That’s us, BTW!) If this is you, don’t worry – we will do our best to still fit you in.
However, if you can send your work earlier, we hugely recommend this. Why? Well, for a start, a longer period between us looking at the work and you submitting your thesis gives you longer to respond to our amendments. This is especially useful if you’ve booked feedback. Sometimes an analysis chapter might benefit from two rounds of feedback, which means that waiting until you’ve dotted all the ‘i’s, crossed all the ‘t’s and are eager to submit can lead to problems.
Of course, sometimes we are fully booked, so if you wait until the last minute, we might be unable to help you, which would be a shame.
We’re happy to look at individual sections of your thesis over weeks, months or even years. You don’t have to wait until everything is finished to book our services. If you’ve got a lit review you’ve finished but you’re waiting for ethics to come through so you can recruit the participants, send us that lit review and you can be doing your amends while you wait. And then when the deadline comes around, you’re ahead of the game and can smile the smile of the smug!
Whatever your issue, if you’re a postgrad qualitative student needing extra help, we are here for you. Just contact us via the box below and tell us what’s going on for you.
Whether you are new to Interpretative Phenomenological
Analysis (IPA) or have been using it for a while, you may have noticed some
differences in the language associated with this qualitative approach to
research.
This might seem confusing at first but don’t worry; help is at hand!
The guidance and steps suggested to conduct
your analysis remain the same. So do the underlying principles. All that’s changed
is some of the terminology.
Terms like emergent theme or superordinate theme, which you will see in most IPA papers published pre-2022 and in the first edition of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Researchby Jonathan Smith, Paul Flowers and Michael Larkin (2009), have been updated, as explained in the table below.
Old term
New term
Emergent Theme
Experiential Statement
Superordinate Theme
Personal Experiential Theme (PET)
Master Theme
Group Experiential Theme (GET)
Emergent Themes are now known as experiential statements, superordinate themes are now called personal experiential themes, and master themes are now referred to as group experiential themes.
This change in terminology can actually make things clearer as you work through your analysis. Experiential statements are just that, statements about the experiences captured in your data in terms of their meaning for the participant.
Let the new IPA terminology light your pathway through analysis
The example transcript includes the lines “so I really had to put in the effort and judge people quite quickly as well. So, yeah, I just had to put stuff out there quite a lot”. One of the experiential statements to arise from this analysis is ‘Selectively and purposively bonding with strangers’ (p. 41).
This statement is both concise and rich. It captures the participant’s description of forging relationships with other travellers and their sense of this being a deliberate, active process. A statement such as ‘Meeting new people’ or ‘Social aspects of travel’, although still reflective of the data, would not provide the same experiential detail.
The new IPA terminology is nearly as much fun as meeting new friends whilst travelling. Honest!
Thinking in terms of experiential statements – rather than emergent themes – can help you orient yourself during the earlier analytic stages. An experiential statement involves summarising the meaning in a short portion of the text – perhaps just a few lines. At this stage, being too concerned with the bigger picture of ‘themes’ can distract you from looking carefully at each section of the transcript in a close, fine-grained fashion.
Personal experiential themes or PETs, are themes developed through an analysis of a
single case, meaning they are personal to that individual.
Group experiential themes or GETs are developed by looking across individual cases for patterns of
convergence and divergence. They are themes which represent the group.
As you can see, the revised terminology makes finding your way through the analysis easier.
Doing IPA can feel like tackling a maze. The new terminology can help you find your way.
Are you a postgrad student using qualitative methods to explore a social science topic?
Are you wrestling with your analysis, your themes, your write up? Or maybe you’re feeling nervous about your viva?
Qualitative research is an intense process that requires a lot of careful thinking. You need to hold many ideas in your mind as you consider connections between your themes and how your research fits into the wider picture. It’s no wonder analysis can cause a headache.
That’s why PGPR offers video consultations: hour-long sessions in which one of our team of qualitative experts talks you through the challenges you’re facing in your research project.
If you’re wondering whether a PGPR VC can help you, read the following examples to see how we’ve helped clients in the past…
Aimee was working on resubmitting a reflective assignment as part of her psychotherapy doctorate. She was finding it challenging to revise her previous submission to ensure she met the assessment criteria while expressing her lived experiences clearly in a formal academic style. Aimee sent us her original submission, along with the feedback from her assessors and the assessment criteria. Through a series of video consultations, we explored how Aimee could relate psychotherapeutic theory to both her personal and professional experiences. We identified specific areas where she could demonstrate her relevant understanding in relation to the required learning outcomes. By explaining her ideas verbally, Aimee felt more confident communicating her knowledge, and successfully reworked her assignment with a clearer narrative arc.
We helped Aimee with her reflective assignment through a VC
Bob had completed the write up of his interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) findings for his doctoral thesis. He had received feedback that his work was descriptive rather than interpretative and was unsure how to address this. Bob sent us his results chapter and we had a chat about how we could best support him. We agreed that a general discussion about how to be interpretative would be too abstract, so decided he would select some quotes from his findings which we could explore together. During the hour, we talked through a small selection of extracts in depth. This allowed Bob to get a sense of how to approach his data interpretatively, what to look for and the types of questions he could ask himself. He then felt more able to apply this to the rest of his findings chapter, which he continued to revise on his own.
Thanks to a PGPR VC, Bob was able to rewrite his results chapter
Cathy had completed her PhD viva and was unsure how to approach her revisions. She sent us her viva report and thesis. In a series of video consultations, we focused on the different amendments required. In one session, we made a detailed plan for a chapter she had been asked to re-structure so that she could go away and organise her writing with clarity. In another, we discussed the examiners’ request that Cathy acknowledge the influence of her position on the research. We decided that writing a single reflexive statement would be appropriate and talked through what she might include in it. Cathy later sent some sections of her amended thesis for proofreading and written feedback to iron out the last details. Her revised thesis was accepted.
If you decide to book a VC with PGPR, we will spend an hour looking at your work before the session, and then an hour discussing the work once it’s done.
Previous PGPR VC client Andrea K said:
“I found my consultation meetings with Rachel incredibly helpful. When I felt stuck in my analysis, Rachel helped me to understand better what I am doing well (which motivated me to continue) as well as areas for further learning by discussing specific examples in my data. She definitely helped me to understand better how to put theory (IPA principles) into practice (analysis). Each consultation was used very efficiently thanks to Rachel’s clear focus, and she also made sure we had some time to discuss any questions/dilemmas that I had. I would recommend these consultations to anyone who feels stuck or wants to learn what they do well and what they can improve. Do not hesitate to contact the team if you have any other issues in your research study as they seem to consider individual needs and requests very well.”
Get in touch via the form below to book a session with one of our qualitative experts.
Exciting times here at PGPR… our team has doubled in size over the past few months. We now have more staff members who can help you with all your proof-reading and feedback needs. Additionally, our new staff are bringing new expertise to the fold, so it could be that we can now help you or your colleagues with areas you hadn’t previously considered contacting us about.
While PGPR has traditionally helped qualitative psychology students, most of whom are using IPA or thematic analysis, we can now also help criminology,humanities, history and musicology students as well as students who are using quantitative analysis, mixed methods, ethnography and discourse or framework analysis.
Here’s a rundown of our new stellar staff members.
Claire M has a BSc in psychology and criminology,
an MSc in psychology of health and wellbeing and a PhD from Keele University.
She is another discourse analysis expert who can offer feedback
and video consultations in this area, as well as transcription.
She has also edited the PsyPAG Quarterly Journal for two years and worked as an
editor on the QMiP Bulletin since 2016. She believes it’s important to give
encouraging feedback that doesn’t make students physically cringe and hide away
for a week.
Claire R is a mixed-methods health psychology and health services researcher with a keen interest in digital health, long-term conditions and implementation science. She can offer proof-reading and feedback for students working with thematic analysis, framework analysis, ethnography and mixed methods. She has worked and studied at a variety of universities in the UK and completed her PhD in improvement science at the University of Southampton. She is currently based at the University of Oxford but lives in Southampton.
Talking your research over with one of our experts can lead to a breakthrough.
Josie has been working as a lecturer in psychology, teaching BSc and MSc Psychology, for the last 12 years. She’s currently working as a teaching fellow at King’s College London. She can help you with proof-reading and feedback for thematic analysis, IPA and quantitative work as well as video consultations. She has taught research methods in psychology (both qualitative and quantitative), biological psychology, cognitive psychology, mental health, and the psychology of sleep and dreaming. She has also supervised many research projects for final year BSc psychology students, using a range of qualitative and quantitative methods and has written a popular book on the psychology of dreaming.
Nick can help you with any proof-reading needs. He has an undergraduate degree and a master’s in history and became an English language teacher after taking a CELTA course. He has also taught academic English and critical thinking skills to university-level students. Now based in Malaysia, Nick combines proof-reading and editing with tutoring. He has worked with a wide variety of texts, including journal articles for publication, dissertations, academic theses, corporate documents and university papers, while his proof-reading experience covers engineering, hospitality, political science and management.
Shannon is another proof-reading whizz with
expertise in quantitative methods. She also offers transcription.
She completed a Bachelor of Business Science and a Master of Commerce in
economics at the University of KwaZulu Natal. During her time there, she also
worked as an economics tutor and an academic coordinator. She has assisted in
various quantitative research projects, primarily working with econometric and
statistical models. Working in research led Shannon to the role of proof-reader
and editor for research papers, prior to their submission for publication. She
also proof-read postgraduate dissertations in a variety of business-related
subjects.
And last but certainly not least is Steph, a musicologist and early modern music book historian who can offer proof-reading and feedback. With a master’s degree in early music editing from Hull and a PhD in seventeenth-century music publishing from Manchester, she is now an Associate Researcher at Newcastle. She works on music in early modern England, particularly within the broader cultural contexts of print, book history and economic trade. She’s also the editor for the Northamptonshire Victoria County History Trust, meaning she is used to working with historians from a broad range of backgrounds.
The PGPR team have more degrees than you could throw your cap at
If you or any of your colleagues would like to book one of our new team members to look at your work, please just get in touch via the box below – we’ll be happy to help.
By this stage in your postgrad journey, you have probably read thousands of academic papers – or at least it feels that way. Indeed, you may have written one or two as well. But was the process quick and painless – or did it involve tears, tantrums and having to cut far too many of your carefully honed words? If you fall into the latter camp, you’ve come to the right place. Don’t panic; paper writing is challenging at first. But the more you practice, the slicker the process gets.
The method section is the simplest section of the paper. What did you do? Can you remember? If so, write it down. Check your target journal to see whether they have certain subheadings they want you to include (examples might be data collection, analysis, ethics and so on). If they don’t, have a look at other papers and copy their headings. Writing this short, factual series of paragraphs gets you into your stride and breaks that terrifying ‘blank page’ syndrome.
If you can, it’s often a good idea to start writing your method section while you’re still conducting the research. This ensures that you don’t forget any of those details about exactly where you found participant 14 or when you made those all-important changes to your interview schedule.
2. Use your table of themes to create your findings section
The findings are the most important section of a qualitative paper. This should be the longest and most detailed element and will guide the material you include in your introduction and discussion sections. This is why, once you’ve got started with the super-simple method, you should tackle the findings next.
You’ve got a table of themes that you lovingly created during your analysis, right? Well – I say lovingly created – what I mean is wrote, crossed out, re-created, kicked down the stairs a few times and cried over until you reached this final draft. Am I right?
Well, there’s good news and bad news. The good news is that (nearly all) of the hard work is already done. Created correctly, your table of themes should be the blueprint for your findings section. This means that you already know what points you want to make, in what order, and supported by which quotes. Brilliant, right? Well done past you. In theory, all you need to do now is turn write about why you named the themes and subthemes as you did, how those ideas are supported by the quotes and any interplay between the themes. With the right table of themes, this is easier than it sounds – the section almost writes itself.
The bad news – which really isn’t all that bad – is that analysis continues during writing. This means that, as you write your findings up, you are likely to realise that some quotes don’t quite do the right job, or that some points need shuffling around. You might need to seek out some different quotes, or re-order things. That’s fine; it’s good, in fact, as it shows you’re really engaging with the material. In this instance, use your new findings section to re-order the table.
The next stage is the introduction. These can be tough to write when you start writing papers as opposed to a thesis. They are somewhat equivalent to the lit review chapter of the thesis – but much, much shorter. And shorter does not mean easier!
Start by making a bullet point list of all the points you need to make in your introduction. These should include:
Setting the scene for your research question
The main points which need addressing from that question. So, for example, if you’re asking what it is like to work in criminal law (a heteronormative culture) as an LGBTQ person, you might have a bullet point on heteronormativity, a bullet point on the culture in criminal law and a bullet point on the challenges faced by LGBTQ people working in heteronormative environments. (I kinda want to read that paper now…)
Why your approach is the best way to answer your question
Once you have the list, approach this in the same way you did the method section – just fill in the blanks and write a paragraph (two at most) for each bullet point. If you’re lucky, you’ll already have done all the relevant reading. If you’re not, you’ll need to conduct a lit review at this point. However, knowing exactly what areas you’re interested in will make this quicker and easier than if you were just exploring the topic as a whole. Search for relevant, recent papers, plug them into EndNote or whichever referencing system you’re using, whizz through the relevant sections and make notes on anything useful. As you go, slot useful points into your skeleton intro, following the bullet points. You can refine it later. Ensure you don’t just look for papers that back up your pre-existing point of view; remember to be critical at all times, even of your own ideas.
Think of your introduction as a funnel. You’re starting with the wider context of the question and then narrowing down to the point where the reader agrees with you that answering this is question is essential, and that your stance is the best way to do so.
4. Discussion
Once you’ve presented your findings and shown the reader why they are important via the introduction, the next stage is to discuss them (hence the name!) in the light of other people’s work. Discussion sections can be notoriously tricky, which is why we have an entire blog post dedicated to getting them just right.
Qualitative discussions will generally follow the same structure as your findings. Work through each theme in the same order you presented them, showing how your findings confirm, contradict or build on existing work.
If time is of the essence, you can start your discussion section simultaneously with the introduction – after all, the two map onto each other to a certain extent. As you read the papers and make notes in a skeleton discussion section too. Write out your theme names under the ‘discussion’ title and note down any useful findings from others. All you need is to polish up your notes (and potentially look for a few more papers), and voila! You’re nearly done.
5. References
Please tell me you’ve been doing these the whole time? And that you’re using a handy piece of referencing software like EndNote or Zotero? If so – easy peasy. Use your software to set the references to the right system for your chosen journal (APA 7, Chicago or Harvard, most likely), and away you go. If you haven’t been using software, step one is to amend this immediately for next time. I know it feels like an intimidating pain before you get started, but it is SUCH a lifesaver in the end. Step two, for now, is to get onto Google Scholar and copy and paste those bad boys in by hand.
Ever tried to cook without spices? A good abstract provides a taste of what’s to come in your paper!
And finally, the abstract. Journals often have tight rules for how long an abstract should be and what structure it should follow, so check those first. Your abstract needs to give a small flavour of all the other elements of the paper. They can be hard to get right and might be best left for a week or so (if you have time) so that you can get a bit of distance from the work. Or, if you’ve done the bulk of the writing, you might ask another member of your research team to have a crack at this bit.
7. Send to PGPR
Whether you’re a total paper-newbie or an old hand, we can all use an extra pair of eyes now and then. If you’re struggling with any element of your paper writing, just get in touch with us using the form below, and we’ll be happy to help.
