Indeed, although I had difficulties earlier in the interview and field observation, the hardship I experienced during the creation of the codebook was more difficult because it was much longer. I had to read the transcript over and over again in order to get a “feel” of the thoughts in the interview, and then I had to read them again in the coding of the transcript, and then again in the creation of the codebook. Looking at the steps, they can be almost considered as easy; however, what made them rather difficult was the fact that I grew tired of my transcript, to the point that I almost could not get new ideas in the succeeding times that I read it. Nevertheless, when I allowed myself some rest and then revisited the paper a few days after, I was able to appreciate the paper better. Somehow, the patterns and the recurrent concepts became more apparent and coding became a little easier. In addition, there were also some methodological/analytical insights that I realized from the coding process. One of these realizations is the fact that all the qualitative data are related to each other, although seemingly unconnected. Indeed, a response to one question could actually a supporting idea for another response in a later question. Another realization involves the fact that the researcher affects the way by which the coding is carried out, not only in the selection of methodology but in the actual choice of concepts itself. From my experience in the coding of my interview transcript, I observed that the interpretive process is shaped by my own spiritual beliefs and orientation. An example of this would be my inclusion of the principal characters involved in the maintenance/observation of religion and spirituality. Some people may have overlooked this aspect of the transcript, but because I believed that religion and spirituality involves a collective effort, I included the said principal players. Furthermore, when I compared my codebook with those of my group mates, I observed some significant differences. For example, my group mates included the characteristics of a spiritual person, as well as the different perceptions of spirituality, but these were not included in my code book. Also, my group mates did not include the principal characters involved in the maintenance/observation of religion and spirituality. I also noticed that the transcripts of my group mates did not really explore the role played or the influence of the workplace in the maintenance of religion and spirituality, which was, ironically, supposed to be the main topic of the coding exercise. Perhaps, the most basic explanation for these differences lies in the fact that I am different and unique from my group mates, and that although we share the same religion, we may not have the same spirituality. Week 6: Reflections on the Thematic Analysis If I thought that the creation of the codebook was difficult, then I guess I was greatly mistaken because it would seem that the thematic analysis was much more difficult. I had two options in making the thematic analysis: I could either present the themes with written summaries and data excerpts illustrating the themes or I could choose to present my thematic analysis with the use of a concept map and a narrative describing the said map.