minance of qualitative research, we investigated its data analysis methods, i.e., its coding (see Fig. 9). 39% of papers did not code data systematically or explain their coding; 35% clearly did; whilst the remaining 26% gave limited detail for some data. When trends were examined, a more positive picture emerged—papers with clearly or somewhat coded data consistently increased, whilst those not coded decreased. This suggests more stringent requirements by referees regarding data analysis, or possibly the popularity of quali- tative analytical softwares, such as NVivo, that facilitate systematic coding.