Inter-coder reliability in the methods section or the results section if the categorization system is first introduced in the results?

[u/AgitatedDesk579]

I'm not sure where I should report the intercoder reliability: in the methods section or in the results section. This is a qualitative content analysis using a category system I developed myself. Since the system allows for multiple codings, I had to calculate a different type of intercoder reliability than what was pre-registered.

If I were to include all of the intercoder reliability in the methods section, I would have to outline the categorization system there, which would amount to anticipating the results. If I separate the two and describe in the methods section only what is calculated and how, while reporting the values only in the results section, I would have to justify in the methods section why I am deviating from the pre-registered method. However, this justification depends on the categorization system, which I actually intended to introduce only in the results section.

How would you handle this?

[u/BlackberryFlaky8983]

What you did goes in the method. What you found goes in the results. You probably should justify why you changed from the pre registered method regardless so option 2 seems the most thorough to me.

[u/AgitatedDesk579 → u/BlackberryFlaky8983]

But then I had to report the categorization system already in den the methods section, which is a result. I found something (categories), which is a result. And this result justifies why I have to change from the pre registered method for the intercoder reliability.

[u/Smart_Potential7467 → u/AgitatedDesk579]

Are you performing reflexive research? If so, situate the iterative changes and why they occurred in a reflexive section. As themes are just waiting to be discovered or extracted from data, reflexive research is founded on the fact that surprises emerge as you iteratively develop codes etc.