While I agree that Braun and Clarke (2006) are sort of critical to the idea of “emergence” because of its implied passiveness that they believed, researchers always should play active roles in the creation of themes by staying sensitive, reflective, and open. Next, the coders used the agreed-upon code book to code the interview data.” Though this might seem to be a working approach to use thematic analysis (a typical qualitative analysis method) in their specific study, the authors may have ignored a severe problem that could emerge in their coding process, i.e., how could they possibly ensure all codes that they are going to develop on a new upcoming interview document will definitely fall to these 135 previously-defined code set? What’s more, this seems to be a typical “forcing” approach in qualitative data analysis.

The paper mentioned that “… two coders convened, discussed, and converged their codes into a code book of 135 unique codes …. There are mainly two things that I would like to reflect upon. Nevertheless, I noticed several methodological issues unexplained in their paper, yet I think this may be an opportunity to be a little bit verbose and loquacious to talk about my reflections of qualitative analysis, which is increasingly important in UX research and product analysis across various technology industries. Recently I read an interesting CHI paper which was a qualitative study and was related to our research project. Coding in A Qualitative Analysis In a Real Research Project (blurred the picture on purpose)

Reliability in qualitative research