“Because of the richness of video data, the problem is not usually of having something to say, but of choosing among the many things that one could say and fashioning them into a coherent account” (Engle, Conant & Green, 2007, p. 248).
Coding a video is a complex process that is extremely necessary in order to arrange video data into a “coherent account.” Formal coding “turns the visual and auditory images into quantitative data” (Stigler, Gallimore, & Hiebert, 2000, p. 92), allowing researchers to compare different videos among different samples and to share them with colleagues on different research teams.
Coding requires the researchers to be explicit about the kind of interpretation they are going to do on specific footage. It involves segmenting the video into small units of analysis (e.g., time sampling or a specific event; for more information see “Coding unit and coding schemes“) and assigning each unit a code/s.
How is a coding manual defined and/or chosen? Strategies for choosing a coding manual
Engle and colleagues (2007) suggest writing down all the ideas that come to mind: “If one short circuits this phase, one can easily make premature, unwarranted conclusions” (p. 248). In this kind of strategy, all the people involved in the research discuss how to define operationally a specific coding manual, in relation to the purpose of the study, and/or based on a grounded theory.
Another strategy for defining or choosing a coding manual is to use existing coding manuals, previously tested and used.
Coding as a team
Often when working with video data it is useful to share ideas and work as a team. When working as a team, a group analysis is suggested in every stage of the video research. In the coding phase it is useful at first to encourage multiple interpretations of a particular event (in order to define it), and then to perform a shared formal coding session to gain inter-rater reliability. Today, thanks to new technologies, software can allow researchers to easily annotate, code, and share video data among team members.
Coding software
The list below presents some of the main software packages used for coding in video-based qualitative research. In the summary table provided, you can find information about the specific capacities and limitations, the types of files supported, the platforms it can work on, the cost, and related publications of interest.
Note: Software information last updated December 2014
| Transcribing | Annotating | Coding | Collaborating | MAC | PC | Cost | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diver | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Free | |
| HyperResearch | HyperTranscribe (sold separately) | Y | Y | Y | From $199 up to $999 | ||
| Transana | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | From $75 up to $795 | |
| NVivo 10 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Not specified | |
| MAXQDA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Not specified | |
| Studiocode | Y | Y | Y | Not specified | |||
| Elan | Y | Y | Y | Free | |||
| Dedoose | Y | Y | Y | Y | Pay per month |
 |
OverviewWebsite |
 |
OverviewWebsite |
 |
OverviewWebsite |
 |
OverviewWebsite |
 |
OverviewWebsite |
 |
OverviewWebsite |
 |
OverviewWebsite |
 |
OverviewWebsite |
References
Engle, R., Conant, F.R., & Greeno, J.G. (2007). Progressive refinement of hypotheses in video-supported research. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stigler, J, Gallimore, R., & Hiebert, J. (2000). Using video surveys to compare classrooms and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the TIMSS video studies. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 87-100.