We just had a great collaborative coding session in our fortnightly meeting, a process that I highly recommend..basically it involves coding in a group, all have a transcript, the researcher reads chunks and the group discuss coding and try to reach consensus
We looked at a transcript from a study about how women adapt to breast cancer risk.
Its ideal if there is some different perspectives in the group, even people from outside Psychology, who can offer alternatives and contribute towards a real debate..today we had lots of debate, particularly wrestling with codes that could be seen as reading too much into the data and those that might have seen denial of risk as pathology rather than self-protection
You'd be surprised how this can add richness to your analysis, spark new ideas, reveal your biases, develop hypotheses for future interviews and more..
It is also , of course, another form of triangulation, adding trustworthiness and supporting a host of measures you might include in your study for this purpose