A Reflective Journal Template for Quantitative Studies

TL;DR

I am a Doctoral Candidate in IT. I have chosen to do a Qualitative Study using Deductive Thematic Analysis. I don’t have much experience with qualitative studies, so if you’re in a similar situation, I hope this is helpful.

I searched Google, Google Scholar, my university’s library, and anywhere else I could think of for an example of a Reflective Journal entry. I found many articles discussing how important it is to have one, and a few gave vague tips on what goes on one, but I could not find an example with explanations. So, I created one and thought I would share it.

I am sure it isn’t an end-all, be-all reflective journal template, but it is what I am starting with. I hope no one comes back and says the lack of examples in publications is on purpose. I would encourage you to read the papers that discuss the usage of a journal, but for what I am doing and how I think, a working example would have been helpful.

Below is the template I will be using as I start my project. This is what I will fill out immediately after each interview, and it will become part of the interview record. This template is shared as a working example, not a prescriptive standard.

Reflective Journal Template

1. Session Context

Date:

Participant ID:

Interview Duration:

Interview Mode:

Brief context or notes about the session setting:

This encapsulates the idea of immersing myself in the data. I will have to conduct the interview, create the transcript, QA it, and then read and reread it over a period of weeks. I want to put enough here so that when I review the transcript later, I can picture what happened and recreate any emotional connection with the participant.

2. Summary of Key Themes (Descriptive)

Describe the main points raised by the participant.

Focus on what was said, not the interpretation.

Notable observations:

I have added another question to this section, in addition to what you see here. That question is specifically about my research question and how well it was addressed in the interview at a high level. My notes are broken down into some details about the underlying theory, but I don’t call out each tenet of the theory.

3. Initial Theoretical Reflections (Analytic)

List out the components and tenets of your underlying theory.

This section will go into more detail on how well the interviewee covered the components of the theories on which my research is based. In the 2nd section, I have an overview. In this section, I have listed the components of the theories, yes, I am using two, and I have space to comment on each.

4. Researcher Reflexivity

Reflect on your assumptions, reactions, or potential biases.

Personal reactions during the interview:

Assumptions challenged or reinforced:

Steps taken to remain neutral:

This is the section that is often talked about in academic research, and many authors have explained it better than I ever could. In qualitative research, one measure of success is trustworthiness. Trustworthiness requires credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. To provide those, the researchers must thoroughly document the process and emphasize transparency in the report (Ahmed, 2024). These are the notes that I will use to create that section. I expect, or at least hope, to see some growth as the interviews go on.

5. Methodological Notes

Document observations about the interview process.

Questions that worked well:

Questions that caused confusion:

Adjustments for future interviews:

This section relates to the growth I mentioned and to constant improvement. I have my interview questions, and I don’t think I can change those after they have been approved by the IRB. There are optional follow-up and explanatory notes for each question, and I expect they will evolve and improve as I go.

6. Emerging Codes or Insights

List any preliminary codes, patterns, or insights that may inform later analysis.

Avoid final conclusions.

I am primarily using a deductive approach, but I will follow up inductively to identify themes that don’t fit the underlying theory. Here is my first chance to document them as I go, rather than waiting until I am coding. I may find that a theme is peculiar to a single participant, but if a theme forms with one participant, it is still important, and I don’t want to miss the opportunity to document that and look for it in others.

Ahmed, S. K. (2024). The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 2, 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051