one step further down the coding path

I was reading a bit more on coding. They spoke of reaching a saturation point, where the coding just seems to fall together with items slotting into place. I think I'm almost there for categories/coding.

I'm coding for the presence/absence of words in the text of the "definition" as identified by the authors', and within the discussion of competency in the article, in order to get an "explicitly identified" definition. The two parts shall be compared as it is beginning to look like the discussion in the text is more reflective of the theory and the authors' definitions reflecting the practice of the concept of competency.

Then I'm going back through to code both parts for the content/meaning, such that if the specific words weren't used but the intent is there, e.g. they speak of "abilities" associated with competency without calling them "abilities" through the use of words such as proactive, etc., then I will code for that meaning also. This I may call an "attributed" or "implicit" definition. Then these two will be compared etc. to see if the distinctions continue to exist.

Once the info in mentioned in the previous two paragraphs is merged, an overall concept of competency per article may emerge, allowing one to say whether there is a common concept of competency and/or common ways these definitions are phrased within the literature.

The information/data has already been broken down into the different approaches: role-based versus aspect-based approaches to competency and this will be thrown into the pot for analysis.

But something is niggling at me, demanding my attention. I haven't been able to define it as yet but I suspect it is a new category/node/coding whispering my name. It may be that how the authors' express their definitions needs to be coded for: a resulting list of competencies, embedded within a training framework, etc. Once this is identified and coded for then all sorts of analysis can take place! I can't wait.