And to just add one more thing: traditionally, coding is done by at least two people on the same data: they agree on meanings of codes, then code separately, then compare notes and try to bring it all back together… So what we’re doing is (unfortunately?) not untraditional in that sense, except what’s unorthodox about it is that a. we are coding our own narratives which means the person who said something has a say over how it gets coded; b. as we code we can keep adding richness to what is already there because the participants are right there with us to answer questions, clarify points, etc., and c. We were all participants in the experience so we’re not hearing these stories as outsiders, we are insiders. The latter can be dangerous in the sense that we might understand details that are not explicitly there in the text, via our tacit knowledge; and that might be close to what the person intended to pass on, but it also might be colored by our own feelings/experience about the incident/thing and also about the actual person writing it or whom they are writing about. That’s something to bear in mind…