PhD Researchers & Doctoral Candidates
A rigorously coded qualitative or mixed-methods thesis—with the audit trail and transparency examiners look for.
Research Methods
Qualitative & Mixed-Methods Research
Numbers tell you what; qualitative work tells you why and how. We bring the same rigor to interviews, cases, and text that we bring to models—transparent coding, an audit trail, and genuine integration when methods are combined—so your qualitative findings carry the same weight as any statistic.
Grounded theory · thematic · case study
Mixed methods & integration
QCA · fsQCA · NVivo
Reproducible, journal-ready
Sample output
codes & sub-themes
themes
Overview
Rigor beyond the regression table
Qualitative research is often treated as the soft option—and often done as if rigor didn't apply. Both are mistakes. A grounded-theory study, a thematic analysis, or a set of cases can be every bit as systematic as a regression, and reviewers increasingly demand that it be: a documented sampling logic, a transparent codebook, an audit trail from raw transcript to reported theme, and honest reflexivity about the researcher's role.
We bring that discipline. We match the approach to the question—grounded theory to build theory, thematic analysis to map patterns, case study for depth, content analysis to quantify, QCA to find configurations—and apply it systematically, with inter-coder checks where they strengthen the claim. For mixed-methods work, we design genuine integration: a sequential explanatory study where interviews explain a survey result, or an exploratory one where qualitative insight builds a measure, not two disconnected halves.
And for configurational questions—where outcomes arise from combinations of conditions rather than independent effects—we run QCA and its variants with carefully justified calibration. The deliverable is qualitative and mixed-methods work a referee will accept: transparent, traceable, and reproducible.
Who We Work With
For research that goes beyond the numbers
If your question needs depth, meaning, or configurations—not just coefficients—this is the right desk to write to.
Management & Organizational Researchers
Case study, grounded theory, and QCA for theory-building and configurational questions in management.
Social Scientists & Policy Researchers
Interviews, focus groups, and thematic analysis for understanding experience, meaning, and process.
Mixed-Methods Researchers
Integrated sequential and convergent designs that genuinely combine qualitative and quantitative strands.
Configurational Researchers
QCA, fsQCA, and set-theoretic analysis for small- and medium-N studies of causal combinations.
Research Institutes & Evaluation Teams
Delphi studies, expert panels, and qualitative evaluation where depth and credibility matter.
Capabilities
The full qualitative & mixed toolkit
Organized across qualitative approaches, mixed-methods designs, and configurational analysis. If your study needs a method not listed here, ask—this is the core, not the boundary.
Depth, meaning & process
Established qualitative approaches, each matched to a different kind of research question.
- Case studies
- Interviews
- Focus groups
- Delphi studies
- Ethnography
- Grounded theory
- Thematic analysis
- Content analysis
Integrating the two
Designs that combine qualitative and quantitative strands into a genuinely integrated study.
- Sequential explanatory
- Sequential exploratory
- Convergent designs
- Quantitative + qualitative integration
Combinations & pathways
Set-theoretic methods for identifying the combinations of conditions that produce an outcome.
- QCA
- fsQCA
- csQCA
- mvQCA
How the Analysis Works
Six steps from data to defensible findings
A transparent sequence that makes qualitative work traceable—from a documented sampling logic to an audit trail a reviewer can follow. Nothing is a black box.
Steps are adapted to your approach: grounded theory vs. thematic vs. case study vs. QCA, and single-method vs. integrated mixed design. We confirm the design with you before fieldwork begins.
-
1
Design
Choose the approach, the sampling logic, and—for mixed methods—the integration strategy the question requires.
Inputs: approach · sampling · integration plan
-
2
Collect
Develop protocols—interview guides, case selection, Delphi rounds—and gather data systematically.
Modes: interviews · cases · focus groups · documents
-
3
Code
Build a codebook and code systematically, with inter-coder checks where they strengthen the analysis.
Tools: codebook · NVivo/ATLAS.ti · inter-coder reliability
-
4
Analyze
Develop themes, build theory, or—for configurational work—calibrate sets and run the QCA.
Methods: thematic · grounded theory · QCA/fsQCA
-
5
Integrate
For mixed methods, bring the strands together at the point of interpretation, not just side by side.
Steps: joint display · meta-inference · triangulation
-
6
Report
Deliver themes, models, or solution paths with an audit trail, methodology, and reproducible files you keep.
Output: themes/paths · audit trail · methods · coded data
Rigor by default
The checks that make qualitative work credible
Qualitative rigor is about transparency and traceability, not p-values. The safeguards that earn a reviewer's trust are standard on every engagement.
Included on every project
- Documented sampling logic and codebook
- Audit trail from raw data to reported findings
- Inter-coder reliability where appropriate
- Transparent QCA calibration and robustness checks
- Reproducible coded data and analysis files you keep
What You Receive
Every engagement, delivered in full
Not a black-box result and a number, but a complete, documented package you can submit, defend, and reproduce.
- Research design and sampling rationale
- Interview or data-collection protocols
- Documented codebook and coded data
- Themes, models, or QCA solution paths
- Supporting quotes, tables, and figures
- Mixed-methods integration and joint displays
- Audit trail and reflexivity documentation
- Reproducible NVivo/ATLAS.ti or QCA files
- Journal-ready methodology and findings sections
Where this fits
Part of a larger arc
Qualitative and mixed-methods work is strongest when the design ahead of it is deliberate and the reporting after it is precise—each handled with the same care.
Research Design & Planning
Identification strategy, power, and specification decided before estimation begins.
Explore methodsStatistical & Methodological Audit
An independent check of assumptions, specification, and reproducibility before submission.
Explore auditPublication & Research Support
Methods and results reporting, journal selection, and reviewer-response support.
Explore support
FAQ
Common questions
Answers to what most researchers and project leads ask before we begin a qualitative or mixed-methods engagement.
No—it is rigorous in a different way. Instead of statistical inference, qualitative rigor rests on transparent sampling and coding, an audit trail, inter-coder agreement where relevant, and criteria such as credibility, transferability, and confirmability. We build that rigor in so the findings are defensible, not impressionistic.
It depends on your aim. Grounded theory builds theory from data; thematic analysis identifies patterns across a corpus; case study examines a bounded phenomenon in depth; content analysis quantifies categories in text; ethnography studies practice in context. We match the approach to your research question rather than to habit, and are explicit about what each can and cannot claim.
Through a documented codebook, systematic application, and—where appropriate—multiple coders with a formal inter-coder reliability measure. We keep an audit trail from raw data to themes so a reviewer can trace how each finding was reached, which is what distinguishes analysis from anecdote.
A mixed-methods design combines qualitative and quantitative strands to answer a question neither could alone—for example, explaining a survey result with follow-up interviews (sequential explanatory), or developing a measure from qualitative work before testing it (sequential exploratory). The key is genuine integration, not two studies stapled together, and we design for that.
Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) uses set theory and Boolean logic to identify combinations of conditions that lead to an outcome—it looks for configurations and multiple pathways, and allows that different combinations can produce the same result. Regression estimates the net, independent effect of each variable. QCA suits small- and medium-N research where causation is conjunctural.
csQCA for crisp (binary) conditions, mvQCA for multi-value conditions, and fsQCA for fuzzy sets where membership is a matter of degree. fsQCA is the most common in management and social science. We help calibrate the sets carefully, since calibration decisions drive the results.
NVivo, ATLAS.ti, or MAXQDA for qualitative coding, and R (the QCA package) or fsQCA software for configurational analysis. You receive the codebook, coded data or truth table, analysis files, and a methods section written to journal standards.
Yes, and it is the best time. The sampling strategy, interview protocol or case selection, and the integration plan for a mixed-methods study all need to be settled up front—designing them in advance prevents data that can't support the analysis or the integration you intend.
Related Expertise
Often paired with econometrics
Planning qualitative or mixed-methods work?
Tell us your question and your data—we'll recommend the approach, build the coding and integration plan, and make the findings defensible.