Select blocks to undock or reconnect them. The sketch illustrates a route; it does not change your project.
What can I switch on or off in QT?
These are five workflow steps. In the workbench, configure theme grouping, memos, AI suggestions, Insights, Audit and Figures in Tools → Capability blocks. Core documents, codes and codings remain available. AI requires configuration, request preview and confirmation.
Select the words and assign a code with an explicit Theme, Category or Code role. Mark Read or Revisit; compare reading and coding coverage. Keep and Resume preserve your place.
Comparative QCA has its own calibration workflow. Define cases, conditions and an outcome; justify 0 or 1, inspect the truth table and freeze a conservative result. Counts do not become memberships.
Export the coded full-text notebook and editable Research report. Keep the selected method, process map, Analysis Table and Narrative Analysis together with figures and reproducible code. Restore the project from JSON.
This page and the report use the Bologna CC0 corpus. Its original Italian text and researcher coding are preserved. Other importer fixtures remain available below.
TA / THEMATIC ANALYSISInterpret patterns of meaning.Keep the connections. Write the interpretation.
For reflexive thematic analysis, researchers develop and revisit themes through interpretation and writing. QT keeps the saved links and memos; it does not produce that interpretation.
Thematic Analysis
METHOD MAP M1 · v1
Procedure overview, not a completion record. Document your chosen approach and decisions.
01
Engage with source
Read and revisit the full material; record your analytic position.
02
Code passages
Link precise excerpts to researcher-defined codes.
03
Develop candidate themes
Explore patterns of meaning across the coded material.
04
Review with full source
Reconsider candidate themes against excerpts and wider context.
05
Define themes
Clarify the scope, central meaning and names of the themes.
06
Write with evidence
Develop the narrative with quotations and contextual interpretation.
Revisit 04 → 02 · 05 → 03
A general TA orientation, not a declared subtype. Document your chosen approach; reflexive TA is one approach within the family.
Save this method and map with your Research report in Export. HTML, editable Word and the report ZIP keep that saved version. Word edits stay in Word.
CATEGORIES × CASES → COUNTS
CA / CONTENT ANALYSISInspect categories and counts.Read recorded coding activity in context.
Qualitative content analysis also interprets meaning. QT preserves your saved hierarchy, descriptive counts and a document-by-code matrix; it does not calculate inter-coder agreement.
Qualitative Content Analysis
METHOD MAP M1 · v1
Procedure overview, not a completion record. Document your chosen approach and decisions.
01
Declare unit and approach
Document what is analysed and the chosen content analysis approach.
02
Select meaning units
Identify relevant passages while retaining their surrounding context.
03
Condense when appropriate
Shorten meaning units only when this fits the analytic design.
04
Code and review categories
Compare codes and refine categories with explicit analytic decisions.
05
Interpret in context
Consider meaning and abstraction; themes are optional, design-dependent.
06
Write with evidence
Connect categories, interpretation and source quotations in the report.
Revisit 05 → 02
Content analysis is a complete method. It is not a compulsory preliminary stage for TA or Comparative QCA.
Save this method and map with your Research report in Export. HTML, editable Word and the report ZIP keep that saved version. Word edits stay in Word.
CASES → SETS → CONFIGURATIONS
QCA / COMPARATIVE ANALYSISCompare calibrated configurations.Define the cases. Justify every membership.
In Insights, calibrate binary conditions and an outcome, review the complete truth table and conservative solutions, then export the frozen result with standalone code. Up to 100 cases and six conditions; no logical remainders or fuzzy sets.
Qualitative Comparative Analysis
METHOD MAP M1 · v1
Procedure overview, not a completion record. Document your chosen approach and decisions.
01
Define cases and sources
Declare the case unit and map each case to its source records.
02
Define conditions and outcome
Document each set definition and explicit membership rules.
03
Calibrate explicit 0 or 1
Record researcher judgments, reasons and evidence; missing is not zero.
04
Review truth table and thresholds
Inspect all configurations, mixed outcomes and declared cutoffs.
05
Conservative configurations and necessity
Use eligible observed configurations; no logical remainders.
06
Check cases and write
Review cases and counterexamples before interpreting set relations.
Revisit 06 → 03
Binary crisp-set, conservative, no logical remainders. Set relations do not establish causal proof.
Save this method and map with your Research report in Export. HTML, editable Word and the report ZIP keep that saved version. Word edits stay in Word.
Report writing & method status
Available in Export: edit an Analysis Table and Narrative Analysis, choose saved quotations, compare and restore versions, and download HTML or editable Word. Save up to five figures with editable captions, frozen counts and code; download the complete report bundle. Project JSON preserves retained versions and shared figure assets. Changed coding is flagged; evidence refresh is explicit. Word edits stay in Word.
Comparative QCA scope
The binary conservative workflow is available in Insights. Fuzzy and multi-value sets, PRI filtering, intermediate and parsimonious minimisation are outside this implementation. Code counts remain separate; interpretation and calibration remain researcher decisions.
Full comparison & references
Three methods with distinct decisions.
TA and qualitative content analysis share passage coding, hierarchies and memos. Comparative QCA adds explicit case and set calibration. Choose the method that fits the research question; interpretation and reporting remain your work.
Thematic analysis, qualitative content analysis and Comparative QCA
Approach
Research question
Unit of analysis
Coding approach
Outputs
Reliability
Reflexivity
How far this tool carries it
Reflexive thematic analysis (one TA approach)
What do participants make of X, and what does the field take it to mean?
The coded meaning — a pattern across the corpus, not a single utterance.
Researchers develop codes from the data or with theoretical guidance, then develop and revisit themes. Specify the TA approach used.
Themes with defining quotations; a written narrative of each theme.
For reflexive TA, inter-coder agreement is not the quality criterion; show reflexive engagement and a coherent interpretation. (Braun & Clarke, 2019)
Central. The researcher’s stance is part of the analysis and belongs in the write-up. (Braun & Clarke, 2019)
Carries the mechanics, memos and evidence. In Export, choose Thematic Analysis and write, save and restore your report with a method-specific review checklist. Theme development and interpretation remain researcher decisions.
Qualitative content analysis (CA)
How can the content and its meaning be interpreted through categories?
The coded unit — a defined stretch of text placed in a category.
Conventional approaches derive categories from data; directed approaches start with theory. Summative approaches combine counting with contextual interpretation.
Categories with contextual interpretation; descriptive counts or matrices where justified.
Conventional, directed and summative approaches have different coding and trustworthiness considerations. (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005)
Describe how the analyst developed categories and inclusion rules and interpreted their context.
Carries saved coding, descriptive counts and evidence. In Export, choose Qualitative Content Analysis to edit the Analysis Table, interpretation, method decisions and narrative. Agreement across coders is not computed here.
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
Which calibrated configurations relate to a defined outcome set?
An explicitly identified case, with one or several mapped source documents.
Researchers define conditions and an outcome, then justify every binary membership with decision rules, rationale and optional exact quotations. Code frequencies are not memberships.
Complete truth table, conservative configuration solutions, necessity checks and researcher-written interpretation.
Review contradictory cases, frequency and consistency cutoffs, alternative minimal solutions and the limits of the case design. A configuration does not automatically establish a causal claim.
Record calibration choices, theoretical basis, source evidence, counterexamples and limits.
Available in Insights: one to six binary conditions, one outcome and up to 100 cases. Save calibration, run conservative QCA without logical remainders, then bind the frozen result to an editable report and export data with standalone code.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Dușa, A. (2019). QCA with R. A Comprehensive Resource. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75668-4
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE. ISBN 978-1-5063-9566-1
05 / WHAT WE LEAVE OUT
Less to navigate. More room to think.
Keep the mechanics clear. Keep judgement with the researcher.
01Automatic codingThe model proposes; you review each suggestion.WHY +
A one-click codebook would be easy to build and would remove the thing that makes the analysis valid. The model proposes; a person decides, and the decision is recorded.
NVivo, MAXQDA and ATLAS.ti all ship autocoding or AI-assist features.
02Uncontrolled sharingPrivate accounts, separate projects, explicit exports.WHY +
The online workspace saves files on the QT server in your own account. Projects are not public. Share an export only when you choose; local use remains available.
Use the local workspace when a study requires files to remain on your own machine.
03Real-time collaborationShare a portable project file, with its record.WHY +
Sharing live means accounts, conflict resolution and a server holding the data. The project file is portable instead: hand it over and both copies can be compared.
The hosted tools above, which are built for shared projects.
04Semantic (vector) searchReview exact text matches and their source ranges.WHY +
A researcher looking for every quotation about data sharing wants to know why each one came back. Keyword search is explainable; embeddings are not.
That was the first reason, and it is withdrawn: explainability was the wrong frame. The questions this tool answers are enumerable and reviewable — every quotation that mentions data sharing, shown with its offsets — and a recall that cannot be pointed at changes what the product is, not how well it searches.
Keyword hits can be shown; vector recall cannot. The product boundary holds. (Revised 2026-10; the earlier reason is struck through above.)
A local embedding search over the exported JSON, if you want one.
Snapshots: restore entry is wide-screen only
The restore button and its dialog are hidden below 800px, because restoring a project from a backup is something you do at the computer the project lives on. Automatic snapshots keep being written after every change, on a phone too — only the restore entry is desktop-only.
