I concur, Patrick: a caveate, though--since I've been quibbling ontologically
lately...
...HyperResearch (I use v2.3 and am Beta-testing the product, therefore, I've
been afforded the quite expensive stuff for free...) has a modularity called
*hypothesis testing*--wouldn't it rather be better functionally described as a
*construct builder* rather than projecting what I supposed (and hoped for) to be
a *Theory Grounder* (after GT, of course)? I see this *hypothesis tester* of
theirs as a concatenating device. In this *tester*, constructs (cognitive
products generated across our analysis of the data) are built across increasingly
structured, but nevertheless merely linear cognitive products Therefore, these
constructs are not *complex* or recursive and are more etic than emic in their
perspective.
The *tester* only uses Boolean logic--a first-order and non-recursive, functional
logic--in producing these multidimensional operational constructs: I see no sense
of *hypothesis testing*--aside from the nominal fact that the engine underneath
the device uses a Boolean structure:
IF [some Boolean expression using two or more *codes* IS TRUE (...in the data
that has been coded...)] THEN [NAME this Boolean construction a discrete, new
*code* and ADD this new *code* to the registery]
So where is the *hypothesis*? I can see the *testing*, since the *tester*
actually scans the coded text for such combinatorics as are offered by your
choice of Boolean *possible*, *hypothesised(?)* code. I was thinking of
*Hypothesis* as in *Research Question* when I first began to use
HyperResearch... ;-} rap.
Patrick Maher wrote:
> ??
> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
> for Goodness sake Anji, take a good look at HyperRESEARCH. It is far
> superior to both. It's a LOT mor euser friendly as well. Try Scolari.com.uk
> or the simple Scolari.com
>
> > From: Anji <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> > Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:44:35 -0700
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: My first query: Atlas vs NVivo..any views?
> >
> > Here goes my first experience of asking for opinion over mailbase....
> >
> > I am new to the world of qualitative research and I am trying to get some
> > information together about which software package might be most useful to
> > me in the future for analysis. At the moment I have had suggestions along
> > the lines of Atlas (most commonly used in our department) and NVivo (as
> > likely to be the package more people will be using in the future).
> >
> > As I am at the very beginning of a project, and do not have much experience
> > of the field yet, I am very open-minded as to what I end up using. I am not
> > a complete beginner on computers (have used word processing packages and
> > quantitative packages) but I am not very good at tinkering with computer
> > packages if things start to go wrong!
> >
> > My data will probably consist of open-ended interview questions and
> > responses to vignettes. The sample will be about 100 people and I will want
> > to look especially at the language used when people speak on certain
> > subject areas and connections between themes that emerge.
> >
> > Has anyone any advice on the relative merits of using NVivo over Atlas?
> >
> > I would be really greatful for any advice on my address below.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Anji Wilson
> > e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > stop
--
"Dein Wachstum sei feste und lache vor Lust!
Deines Herzens Trefflichkeit / hat dir selbst das Feld bereit',
auf dem du bluehen musst." Peasant, Richard A. Parkany: SUNY@Albany
Prometheus Educational Services - http://www.borg.com/~rparkany/
Upper Hudson & Mohawk Valleys; New York State, USA
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|