At 01:51 08/07/00 +1000, you wrote:
>OK - we get the point, but could you please get the reference right........
>
>The Web has never heard of www.mailbase.ac.uk/qual-software - well at least
>not at this point in time.
>
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/qual-software/ is the link
>Peter French
>Melbourne, Australia
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: alewins <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 1:20 AM
>Subject: Re: Support for NOT using Qual software
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Miller
Faculty Office
Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8RT 0141 339 8855 extn 0223
http://www.gla.ac.uk/faculties/socialsciences/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
