I want to stop another endless run of individual requests for the same
information - ...so please no more requests - but if you have a contribution
to make- or references to post - then we will ALL be interested;
..do follow up Duncans suggestion to dig around in the CAQDAS bibliography
at
www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/caqdas/biblio.htm
or follow up Sarahs very good suggestion to dig around in archives -
www.mailbase.ac.uk/qual-software
Personally I'd like to point out a much quoted essay by Michael Agar, 'The
Right Brain Strikes Back' in
Fielding, N. and Lee R, eds., (1991, 2/e 1993) 'Using computers in
qualitative research' , Sage (see bibliography at above)
......over-simplifying just some of his points from memory, he suggested
that software available was not (at the time)suited to *tracking and
identifying small processes and narratives - or for instance helping to
discover what drove the narrative to emerge in the way it did. One could
only discover these things by reading and re-reading, or at a different
level of thinking, brainstorming around a room whose work surfaces,
perpendicular and horizontal ,were covered with bits of information.
( Comment: *I still don't think s/w does much for you in this respect, at
least not for small amounts of data which require this type of 'immersion'
analysis - though one or two softwares make a better attempt at it).
>From previous discussions, the defence of software often revolves around the
'tools' argument - and the nature of data itself -
technology tools already changes data when they become reproduced in paper
form - they are not the same as they were when we experienced a situation or
discussion - and didn't technology anyway influence the way respondents
produced the information?
So where does the use of tools stop? It should stop if the tool itself is
the problem. Maybe the tool is just plain redundant if what we need is
complete immersion in a small dataset. Maybe we don't have a realistic
timespan allocated to learn it - maybe having to learn a software is a
distraction from more important stuff, like producing the dissertation in 3
weeks and thinking about the data rather than the software! The software
might become a tool like a pencil held the wrong way up - or worse, a
calculator producing totals which bear no relation to the calculation we
are attempting, because we don't know which buttons to press. Key issues
here are familiarity with the tools - adequate time resources to enable
that.
The wrong thinking arrives for me with this popular assumption by nameless
bodies who 'fund' - or talk vaguely about validity and science, that
software should be used because it will somehow improve scientific value of
the work. Or because some helpful person said vaguely - 'oh its easier with
a software package - why don't you use ......?'. It may be all those things,
in some circumstances. Not in all.
We have some cultural influences which make us use the computer to do things
which we managed with very nicely, thank you very much, before.
But even typing got easier with the computer, so there are indeed some other
things which are made easier with the computer - so we should take a
balanced and individual view based on our individual needs.
The usefulness of software or the 'which software? question' depends
entirely on a number of factors; the size and type of your dataset - your
analytic approach - descriptive and interpretive, discourse analysis,
content analysis - or a mixture of all of those.
For the more descriptive interpretive approaches I'd say and the developers
of the software would say too, that MANAGEMENT of your data is going to be
a key factor WHETHER YOU USE A SOFTWARE PACKAGE OR NOT . BUT whether you
use coloured markers or the walls of your dining room or a piece of
software - it is YOU that does the thinking.
For large datasets - and we see them increasingly in e.g. the health field,
of 40 or more - (sometimes 200!) interviews - I consider that there is a
need for the added value from software's data 'management' tools. These are
best supplied by software packages specifically developed for qualitative
data analysis - for a number of different analytic approaches.
Software helps to give you quick ACCESS to the data and later to those parts
of the data that seemed interesting or valuable earlier in the exploration
process. The software will allow you more flexibility to change your mind,
more room for manoeuvre. It might make you more prepared to go right back to
the beginning and work from a different angle of approach. The s/w may
allow you to ask questions to test relationships between things and themes.
But these questions come from you - not the software. You have to have the
ideas before you can play with them..
There is plenty of room too - for more discussion about the relationship of
the researcher to the data inside a software package and how we move around
them; - do we flit around data like a bee gathering pollen - or are we
encouraged to be as fully immersed in the small processes and interactions
as we need to be? Does the data actually demand full immersion... some data
and some projects don't.... does the software help that process- or is it
actually a barrier? Do we have better contact with the data a page at a
time in paper form - than we do on screen? Are we so busy playing with s/w
toys we lose the data? Do we have too much data even using a s/w package?
.........so, back to things like dataset size, the aims and objectives of
the project vary ........ we should not make generalities or have them
forced upon us, we should assess our own needs according to the way we like
to work, the size of the dataset - and what we need to pull out of the data.
I'd say though it is too easy to remain negative about software just because
of unfamiliarity with it. Resistance to the use of a qual-software package
can be justified and sustained by many quotes and writings - but a balanced
view needs to be taken - and thats easy to say !!!
Oh and while you are storing up the negatives - there are some purely
physical issues too... what about RSI? -
......what about our eyesight? If you don't absolutely have to be sitting
in front of computer, don't.
OK, some very mixed messages there - do argue!
regards
Ann Lewins
CAQDAS Networking Project
(and list-owner qual-software)
also at [log in to unmask]
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|