Qualitative Data Analysis: NVivo + MAXQDA Service | Research Gold
Qualitative Data Analysis Service
Qualitative data analysis is the structured coding and interpretation of non-numerical data such as interviews, focus groups, and open-ended responses. At Research Gold, a PhD researcher in your field codes your data in NVivo, MAXQDA, or ATLAS.ti using thematic, framework, grounded theory, or content analysis, and returns the coded project file, a codebook, a theme map, and an APA-ready results section.
Qualitative data analysis is the structured coding and interpretation of non-numerical data such as interviews, focus groups, and open-ended responses. At Research Gold, a PhD researcher in your field codes your data in NVivo, MAXQDA, or ATLAS.ti using thematic, framework, grounded theory, or content analysis, and returns the coded project file, a codebook, a theme map, and an APA-ready results section.
Free written quote
Scope, timeline, and price before you commit
Quote in minutes
WhatsApp or email
NVivo, MAXQDA, ATLAS.ti
Codebook + audit trail delivered
Need a PhD-led qualitative data analysis with NVivo, MAXQDA, ATLAS.ti, or Dedoose, an auditable codebook, and an APA-ready results section? One fixed fee, agreed before any coding starts. Get a free quote.
What you get from a qualitative data analysis project
Each engagement is delivered as a complete deliverable bundle so you can drop the analysis into your thesis, manuscript, or grant report without rework. You are matched with a PhD researcher published in your field and tradition, whether that field is nursing, psychology, education, sociology, public health, and beyond. The analyst codes your interview or focus group data using thematic analysis, framework analysis, grounded theory, or content analysis, building coding frameworks and codebooks, and reporting intercoder agreement where a second coder is available, in NVivo, MAXQDA, or ATLAS.ti.
Written analysis plan approved before coding starts: research question, methodological approach (thematic, content, framework, or grounded theory), coding cycles, software, and how trustworthiness will be addressed.
Codebook with code names, definitions, inclusion and exclusion rules, and at least two example quotations per code.
Coded software project file in NVivo, MAXQDA, ATLAS.ti, or Dedoose. You receive the original file, not just exported PDFs, so your supervisor or reviewers can audit the coding.
Theme development with a visual map showing how codes were grouped into categories and how categories were grouped into themes.
Illustrative quotations selected for each theme with participant identifiers and line numbers.
How it works
Our qualitative data analysis process
Each project follows the same five steps so you know exactly where your work is at any point.
1
Method selection
Thematic, framework, grounded theory, or content analysis matched to your question.
2
Coding setup
Codebook drafted with you, project file in NVivo, MAXQDA, or ATLAS.ti.
3
Coding + audit trail
Inductive or deductive coding, intercoder agreement check on a subsample.
4
Theme development
Themes mapped to verbatim quotes, trustworthiness checks documented.
5
Results section
Publication-ready findings section, audit trail, and reflexive memos.
What you receive
Every qualitative data analysis order ships with
Codebook with definitions and examples
NVivo, MAXQDA, or ATLAS.ti project file
Theme tables with supporting verbatim quotes
Intercoder agreement report on a sub-sample
Audit trail and reflexive memos
Verified client reviews
What clients say about our qualitative data analysis
APA-ready results section structured around the themes, written with embedded quotations.
Methods paragraph describing the analytic approach, the coding process, the software, the analyst's reflexivity, and the trustworthiness checks performed (credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability).
Reflexive memos captured during analysis and delivered as a separate document so you can defend interpretive choices in your viva.
Intercoder agreement report with Cohen's kappa or percent agreement when a second coder is requested.
Written results walkthrough from the lead analyst, explaining every theme and coding decision so you can present the analysis in your own words.
Software we use
We work in the package your supervisor, journal, or funder expects. The same study can usually be coded in any of these tools, and the choice mainly affects collaboration, export options, and whether your institution holds a license.
NVivo qualitative analysis
NVivo is the standard package for doctoral candidates in nursing, education, social work, public health, and many social science programs. NVivo is well suited to large transcript counts, framework matrices, and coding queries (matrix coding, coding comparison, word frequency, text search). We deliver the .nvp file so your supervisor can re-run any query, plus PDF exports of the codebook, code summaries, and theme map.
MAXQDA qualitative data analysis
MAXQDA is widely used in mixed-methods research and across European universities. Its segment-level memo system is strong for grounded theory work, and its document portrait visualization helps when a discussion section needs to compare cases. Our MAXQDA deliverables include the .mx22 project file, the codebook, the document map, and any matrix coding queries used in the analysis.
ATLAS.ti coding
ATLAS.ti is common in education research, anthropology, and applied health research. Its network view is useful for showing how codes relate to each other, which translates well to a journal figure. We deliver the .atlproj22 file, the network views as PNGs, and the code-document table.
Dedoose for team coding
Dedoose runs in the browser, so it is the natural choice when several analysts are coding the same data from different institutions or countries. We use Dedoose for evaluation studies and multi-site qualitative work. Deliverables include the project export, the codebook, and intercoder reliability output.
Microsoft Word coding
For very small studies (under 10 transcripts) and when no software is required, we can code directly in Word using comments and styles. This is the lightest-touch option and is appropriate for service evaluations and small grants.
Methodological approaches we cover
Six approaches mapped to use case, typical sample size, software fit and output. Pick the approach during the written scoping step rather than after coding starts.
The named approach affects how we develop codes, how themes are reported, and what the methods paragraph claims. Choose the approach with us during the written scoping step rather than after coding starts.
Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke)
Thematic analysis is the most widely used approach in journal and thesis qualitative work. We follow the six-phase reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) procedure: familiarization, generating initial codes, constructing themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report. We are explicit about whether the analysis is reflexive (theme as pattern of meaning) or codebook-style (theme as topic summary), depending on your epistemological stance, since reviewers now expect this distinction.
Qualitative content analysis
Qualitative content analysis suits studies where the categories are partly known in advance, for example a regulatory framework or a published taxonomy. We use the Hsieh and Shannon (2005) typology and document whether the analysis is conventional (inductive), directed (deductive from prior theory), or summative (counts plus interpretation).
Framework analysis
Framework analysis, the framework method for qualitative analysis (Gale et al., 2013), is the standard approach for applied policy and applied health research, especially when the team needs to compare cases across rows of a matrix. We construct the analytical framework, chart the data, and interpret across cases. Framework matrices are produced in NVivo or MAXQDA depending on which the team prefers.
Grounded theory
Grounded theory is appropriate when the aim is to generate a theoretical model rather than to describe themes. We follow grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss, 2008), with open coding, axial coding, selective coding, theoretical sampling, and constant comparison documented in memos.
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)
For small idiographic studies with five to ten participants exploring lived experience, IPA (Smith, Flowers, and Larkin, 2009) is the right method. We code line by line per case, then look for patterns across cases. IPA work is delivered with a transparent case-by-case audit and explicit reflexivity, since reviewers expect the analyst's interpretive position to be visible.
Mixed-methods integration
When the project is mixed-methods, we integrate the qualitative themes with the quantitative statistical analysis service findings using a joint display table, narrative weaving, or transformation, depending on what the design calls for (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018).
Ready to start? A PhD methodologist will quote your project in minutes.
Free rework on coding or themes if reviewers question trustworthiness.
The coding workflow from a written scoping step through two rounds of revisions. The intercoder branch is optional and runs on a 20-25 percent sample.
Every engagement opens with a written scoping step where we confirm the research question, the data, and the analytic approach in writing before any quote is prepared, and no coding starts until you have approved the written analysis plan that names the approach, the software, the coding cycles, and the trustworthiness checks. From there the lead analyst works in two documented cycles: an initial coding pass that produces an interim codebook for your review, followed by a focused, axial, or pattern coding cycle and theme development. Where you request it, a second analyst independently codes a 20 to 25 percent sample for intercoder agreement.
The write-up then follows: a results section built around the themes with embedded illustrative quotations, and a methods paragraph that addresses the trustworthiness criteria in full. You receive a written walkthrough of the codebook, the themes, and the results section, and two rounds of revisions are included so the chapter holds together through supervisor and reviewer comments.
Cost drivers for our qualitative data analysis service
Pricing on the qualitative data analysis service is fixed-fee, approved before work starts, and driven by:
Transcript count. A small qualitative study (10 to 15 transcripts, single coder, thematic or content analysis, results section) sits in the smallest band. A doctoral qualitative chapter (20 to 30 transcripts, two coding cycles, intercoder agreement, full chapter) sits in the middle. A mixed-methods or multi-site study (30+ transcripts, multiple cases, joint display, integrated discussion) is the largest scope.
Coding cycles and intercoder agreement. Single coder versus two-coder workflow with intercoder agreement on a 20 to 25 percent sample materially shifts the fee.
Software project file. NVivo, MAXQDA, ATLAS.ti, or Dedoose project file delivered in all tiers.
Methodology. Thematic, content, framework, grounded theory, narrative, phenomenological, and discourse analysis all supported.
All quotes include the software project file, codebook, write-up, methods paragraph, and a written results walkthrough. The fee is fixed and agreed before any coding starts, and the same scope is priced the same for every client worldwide. For an itemized figure on your project, request a fixed-fee quote or view pricing ranges.
Who uses this service
Doctoral candidates writing the qualitative chapter of a mixed-methods or fully qualitative thesis.
Journal authors who collected interview or focus group data and need it analyzed and written up to a peer-review standard.
Grant teams running qualitative Phase 1 work for a funded study (NIH, NIHR, ESRC, MRC, Wellcome).
Evaluation teams doing applied service evaluations for hospitals, schools, NGOs, or government departments.
Mixed-methods researchers who have already run their statistical analysis and need a parallel qualitative strand integrated into the discussion.
Examples of work delivered
The examples below illustrate typical engagements. You can also view full, published deliverables, each with a verifiable DOI, on our samples page:
Doctoral nursing thesis (n = 24 interviews). Reflexive thematic analysis in NVivo. Five themes constructed across two coding cycles. Intercoder agreement reported (Cohen's kappa = 0.81). Results chapter delivered in 21 days.
Health services evaluation (n = 18 focus groups, 6 sites). Framework analysis in MAXQDA. Cross-site framework matrix constructed for the funder. Joint display table integrating qualitative themes with the survey findings. Delivered in 28 days.
Mixed-methods PhD in education (n = 15 teacher interviews, 1 survey). Conventional qualitative content analysis in ATLAS.ti. Three categories with sub-categories. Integrated with the regression analysis from the quantitative strand for a single discussion chapter.
Trustworthiness, ethics, and reporting standards
Reviewers and supervisors increasingly expect qualitative manuscripts to follow established reporting standards. Every project we deliver maps explicitly onto:
The COREQ reporting guideline for qualitative research (Tong et al., 2007) for interview and focus group studies.
SRQR (O'Brien et al., 2014) for broader qualitative reporting.
Lincoln and Guba's (1985) trustworthiness criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability.
Reflexivity documented through analyst memos and a positionality statement in the methods.
We do not handle ethics applications, but we can write the data analysis plan that goes into your IRB or REC application.
If your project is closed-ended survey or questionnaire data rather than interview transcripts, our our survey data analysis team covers the quantitative side. When the qualitative results feed a wider manuscript, pair this work with literature review writing and journal manuscript preparation so the argument holds from methods through discussion. You can read published examples of our methodological write-ups in our sample deliverables.
What this service does not include
To keep the scope and pricing transparent:
We do not transcribe audio unless transcription is added as a separate quote.
We do not collect data, conduct interviews, or run focus groups.
We do not write the literature review or discussion of theoretical implications. We write the methods, results, and a brief discussion of the themes; the broader framing remains your contribution.
We do not certify reliability claims that go beyond what the data support.
Frequently Asked Questions
8
Whichever the project and reviewers require. NVivo is the standard for many doctoral programs and journals. MAXQDA is common in mixed-methods work and across Europe. ATLAS.ti is widely used in education and the social sciences. Dedoose is browser-based and good for teams. We also accept Microsoft Word with comment-based coding when no software is required, and you receive the original project file, not just PDF exports.
Every project follows a written analysis plan agreed before coding starts. Codes are developed in two cycles, initial open coding then focused or axial coding, tracked in a codebook with definitions and example quotations, and stored in an auditable software project file. When a second coder is requested, intercoder agreement is reported using Cohen's kappa or percent agreement.
Pricing is fixed-fee and depends on transcript count, the number of coding cycles, and whether intercoder agreement is included. A small interview study with a single coder sits at the lighter end, a doctoral qualitative chapter with two coding cycles and intercoder agreement in the middle, and larger multi-site or longitudinal designs at the top. We quote one fixed fee after a written scoping step, agreed before any coding starts and priced the same for every client worldwide.
Yes, that is the most common case. Send the transcripts and the research question, and we return a written analysis plan, agree the coding framework with you, code the data in your chosen software, develop the themes, and write the results section. If the transcripts are not ready yet, we can handle transcription as a separately quoted add-on.
Yes, on request. A second analyst independently codes a 20 to 25 percent sample, and we calculate Cohen's kappa or percent agreement, reconcile disagreements, and report the value in the methods section. Many qualitative reviewers treat this as optional, but it strengthens the audit trail and is often expected in mixed-methods or applied health research.
Not in a way that holds up to peer review. Large language models can summarize a transcript, but they cannot reliably code at the level of detail needed, do not document an audit trail, and tend to drift across long data. For publication-grade qualitative work, ChatGPT is at best a brainstorming aid for code names. The actual coding, theme development, and reflexive memos still need a researcher.
Yes. Every project includes a draft methods paragraph that names the analytic approach, describes the coding cycles, identifies the software, reports analyst reflexivity, and addresses the trustworthiness criteria (credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability) in line with Lincoln and Guba (1985) or COREQ (Tong, Sainsbury, and Craig, 2007).
Turnaround depends on the transcript count, the number of coding cycles, and whether intercoder agreement is included. We confirm a realistic delivery window in writing as part of the analysis plan before any work begins, and a faster option is available when your deadline is tight, scoped and agreed up front.
If your study is mixed-methods, our quantitative statistical analysis service handles the survey side in SPSS, R, Stata, or Python. We can run the qualitative and quantitative strands together and write a single integrated discussion.
Disclaimer
This page is for informational purposes. Research Gold provides professional qualitative data analysis support to assist researchers. Always consult your supervisor, institutional review board, or domain experts for decisions specific to your project.
PhD in Public Health, mixed-methods and qualitative synthesis specialist. Runs the protocol-to-PROSPERO pipeline and supervises dual screening on complex multi-stream reviews.
Reviews are collected through /leave-a-review and moderated before publication.
“the process went very smooth the work was deliverd on time and it was very perfcetly done and the changes were also made on time and as guided . Thank you so much for your work done on time and with good efforts .”
