Why Coding Process Questions Come Up in Qualitative Vivas
The coding process is where qualitative analysis becomes visible to scrutiny — it is the specific analytical activity that connects raw data to interpretive findings. Malaysian qualitative viva examiners ask about coding because it is the procedural core of many qualitative methodologies, and because it is frequently described vaguely in methodology chapters. Being able to describe your coding process in detail during the viva demonstrates that you did not simply assign labels to interview passages impressionistically but followed a systematic, documented analytical procedure.
What to Describe When Discussing Your Coding Process
Prepare to describe your coding process in four stages. First, how you began: “I read all transcripts twice without assigning codes — the first reading was familiarisation, noting general patterns and strong moments, and the second was more analytical, beginning to identify potential code labels.” Second, how you generated codes: “I worked inductively, assigning a code to any passage that was relevant to the research questions, without forcing passages into predetermined categories. This produced 76 initial codes across all 14 transcripts.” Third, how you organised codes: “I then grouped semantically related codes together, which reduced the 76 initial codes to 22 broader categories through an iterative process of comparison and refinement.” Fourth, how you developed themes: “From the 22 categories, I identified six overarching themes that captured the central patterns in the data, supported by multiple categories and multiple participants.”
This four-stage account is specific, sequential, and quantified — giving examiners concrete evidence that the coding process was systematic rather than impressionistic.
Discussing Coding Reliability and Disagreement
If you used any form of inter-rater reliability check — having a second coder independently code a subset of data and then comparing for agreement — prepare to describe this process specifically: how much data was coded by the second coder, how agreement was calculated, and what the agreement level was. If there were disagreements, describe how they were resolved: “Codes where agreement was below 80 percent were discussed until consensus was reached, often revealing ambiguities in my code definitions that were then clarified.”
If you coded alone without a second coder, acknowledge this honestly and describe the alternative trustworthiness strategies you used — reflexivity journaling, audit trail maintenance, member checking. Describing your coding process in the viva with this level of procedural honesty and specificity demonstrates the kind of methodological transparency that qualitative research rigour requires.
