How do you know if your qualitative analysis is good enough? Quality criteria to judge analytical work
Maybe you’re questioning your analysis right now. “Is this good enough?”, “Are my themes strong enough?”.
One of the most uncomfortable parts of qualitative analysis is that nobody can give you a neat, reassuring answer to your question: “Is this right?”
Maybe you’ve come up with a few different iterations of your themes, thrown them all in the bin and started over - and you’ve done this more than once. No shame. After all that, maybe you now no longer trust your own judgement. You’ve worried that your themes are too obvious, too shallow, too broad, too narrow - often all at the same time. Perhaps you keep thinking: “What if I’m just guessing? What if I’m just pulling all of this stuff out of my… hat?”
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in 20 years supporting qualitative PhD students through this stage of the doctorate, it’s this: the hardest part isn’t the analysis itself - it’s trusting yourself enough to stand behind your interpretation.
Usually, no one feels certain. They all have those nightmares in which their examiner says, “You just made all this up, didn’t you?”. Gulp.
Why your analysis feels shaky
Maybe you’re approaching your analysis expecting to find one hidden set of “correct” themes waiting to be discovered. That’s set you up for an awful lot of anxiety because qualitative analysis doesn’t work like this.
There may be more than one reasonable interpretation of the same dataset. Yes, another person could come along, look at your data and make a different call about it.
Why you feel like you’re “guessing”
No one is literally guessing at this. That’s not a thing. What is usually happening is that your analytical reasoning still exists largely inside your own head.
Without really realising it, you’ve noticed patterns, grouped ideas together, started forming interpretations etc., but you haven’t yet fully articulated the reasoning behind those decisions.
When your reasoning still feels partly intuitive and unfinished, the analysis can feel unstable, and create the, “I just made that all up” paranoia.
There is also a second problem - and that’s that no one has ever sat you down and told you how to differentiate good from bad qualitative data analysis. This is the doctoral equivalent of trying to measure up curtains for your bedroom window without a tape measure. That’s never going to end well.
Without clear evaluative criteria, we keep returning to this question: “Is this right?” - because that’s the only one we know how to use to judge the quality of analysis. It’s kind of like asking, “How long is a piece of string?”. Seriously, it’s that not-useful.
Strengthen your qualitative analysis
Let’s work through five actually helpful questions you can use to help you judge the quality of your analysis.
Example: Imagine you are researching newly qualified teachers and their experiences of interacting with parents. After analysing your interviews, you develop a theme around: “Feeling constantly evaluated by parents.” How do you decide whether that theme is “good” enough?
A useful starting point is asking: (1) Can I clearly explain how I arrived here?
Are participants repeatedly discussing anxiety before meetings, pressure to respond quickly to emails, concerns about appearing inexperienced, feelings of being scrutinised? If so, the interpretation is grounded in identifiable patterns within the data. So far, so good.
The next question is - (2) Do my themes genuinely help answer the research questions?
A vague label like: “communication” would be way too broad and descriptive. A more interpretive theme like “constant parental demands blurred the boundaries of the teaching role”, starts moving beyond summary and towards explanation. Your themes get better when they explain something rather than just categorise it.
One of my favourite questions is - (3) Could another intelligent person disagree with this interpretation?
Imagine somebody responds to the earlier teacher example by saying: “Is this really about parental judgement, or is it actually about professional insecurity as a newly qualified teacher?”
Well, okay - this forces you to think more carefully about what’s going on. Perhaps the issue is not one or the other. Perhaps both processes are interacting together. That’s where the good stuff lies in terms of analytical depth.
Oner final question - (4) When you look across your themes collectively, what kind of story do they tell?
What will definitely get you a gold star from your examiner is internal coherence. When your themes connect meaningfully, illuminate different aspects of the phenomenon, and collectively help answer the research questions convincingly, you really have arrived as a serious researcher. Well done, you.
What good qualitative analysis usually feels like
Now we’ve got some criteria, let’s think about the experience of doing the analysis - what should it feel like.
I’m not going to sugarcoat this.
Good analysis feels like an absolute shambles when you’re in the middle of it. Disorder is the beating heart of qualitative research. Seriously. Some of the most intellectually productive stages of the PhD look completely chaotic from the outside.
As a qualitative researcher, you’re dealing with the human experience. Let’s be honest - that’s a big old jumbly tangle. It’s contradictory, complex, frustratingly difficult to grab onto at times. Understanding it takes stamina. It involves pulling at various different threads and making a big stringy muddle all over the floor.
Gradually, from those pieces of string, you start weaving and plaiting something together that looks coherent. But before you can do that, you need to be able to sit and look at the chaos, and become okay with it being like that for a while. Qualitative analysis requires tolerance for ambiguity.
Experienced qualitative researchers are not necessarily people who never feel uncertain or who never get into a mess, they are people who have learned not to panic immediately when uncertainty appears.
“I don’t trust my own judgement with my analysis”
If this is your recurring internal narrative, my From Data to Analysis: Thinking, Methods and Meaning PhD Survival Guide was designed specifically for this stage of the doctorate.
It won’t magically remove the uncertainty that comes with qualitative analysis, but it will help you move through it more deliberately.
It’s here when you need it.
“I can describe what I did. I just don’t know if I trust my own judgement.”
Maybe you’re wondering how your PhD became this complicated.
You might be trying to work out whether your analysis is strong enough, if you’re making thoughtful analytical decisions - or just guessing your way through.
Perhaps you’re able to describe what you did methodologically, but struggle the moment somebody asks you to explain why those choices make sense.
That usually means you’ve arrived at the stage where qualitative research starts demanding something different: interpretation, judgement, coherence, and confidence in your reasoning.
This guide was written for that stage.
Across 12 carefully structured sections, I will help you reconnect the different parts of your study so your methodology, data collection, analysis, and research questions begin making sense together again.
Inside, you’ll learn how to:
align your research questions, methods, and analysis
understand what qualitative analysis is actually asking you to do
make methodological decisions you can justify with confidence
approach your methodology chapter with greater clarity and structure
move forward without constantly doubting yourself
This is a digital download, so you’ll receive immediate access after purchase and can begin straight away.
Swipe through the images above to see what’s inside.
If you’d like one complete system for your qualitative PhD, you can also access all four PhD Survival Guides here.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. I’ll be happy to help.
By purchasing this product, you agree to our Terms & Conditions.