Paddy's query re institution-wide software raises some nice pedagogical
issues: simply put, site licenses benefit the researchers who don't have to
buy individual copies, especially those with teams, the teachers who can
teach software on the assumption all students can really use it and above
all the grad students who wouldn't usually have a continuing use for
purchased licenses after the thesis is finished. I passionately believe in
them - not as a software developer (they are far less lucrative than the
same number of individual licenses) but as a supervisor/teacher/researcher.
They also clearly spread the use of software, which spreads qualitative
computing skills, and I think that's a Good Thing too. (I'm interested to
find that so, apparently, according to the latest guidelines, does ESRC:
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ptd/guidelns/ptgcd01.htm.)
The argument against site licenses is that they restrict choice. Our
experience is that this happens in one very desirable way - the institution
is far more likely to support software that's site-licensed, and the
researcher more likely to get help and good training, or if that isn't
offered, at least availability of colleagues with knowledge. Which leaves as
the remaining downside the possibility that site licensing narrows variety.
Having licenses for many products (as Christopher's institution has for
stats products)is of course usually preferable. But the fact that an
institution or part of it has a site license for one family of software
doesn't stop the individual researcher from buying other software. It will
arguably attract those who don't have intiative or funding to use what's
provided already. If they don't have funding they'd otherwise get no
software... And I'd expect that those who don't have initiative are probably
going to follow their colleagues anyway?
Re Christopher's note, QSR now negotiates site licenses directly according
to the requirements of the department or university; they don't have to be
right across the institution and can be for any or all of our products - N4
Classic, N5 (the old and new NUD*IST) and NVivo, so researchers can choose
the appropriate tools. They are based on staff/student mix as well as many
other factors, so the student pricing of single-user copies (or lack
thereof) is not relevant.
cheers
Lyn
Professor Lyn Richards,
Director, Research Services, QSR.
(Email) [log in to unmask]
Please note QSR's new contact details from July 6th!
(Ph) +61 (03) 9840-1100. (Fax) +61 (03) 9840-1500
(Snail) Second floor, 651 Doncaster Rd.,
Doncaster, Vic 3108, Australia.
http://www.qsrinternational.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Strauss [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2001 3:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Provision of QDA software across an institution
Our research support group looks into this from time to time, but so far has
let the departments do it on their own - Education installs Ethnograph and
NUDIST selectively (only on some machines) in their computer labs. As far
as
I know, we only have campuswide licenses for SAS, SPSS, and S-Plus.
Actually
Nvivo is probably not as good a choice as NUDIST or competing products since
they do not offer student pricing.
Christopher Strauss, MSLS
Remedy Database Administrator
University of North Texas Computing Center
http://remedy.unt.edu/helpdesk/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paddy Riley [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:48 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Provision of QDA software across an institution
>
>
> Hi there,
> I hope readers of this mailgroup will tolerate a question,
> from a non-practitioner of qualitative data analysis, which
> is probably of relevance to only a small subsection of your
> membership.
>
> My background is in quantitative data analysis and I work in
> the University computing service where I have responsibility
> for the provision of data analysis software.
>
> I have been asked to investigate the "issues" involved in the
> provision, campus wide, of some form of qualitative data
> analyis software and I would be very interested in the
> experience of anyone who has been involved in a similar
> exercise. In particular, I would find it most useful to know
> if any UK academic institution has decided to provide this
> type of software on an institution-wide basis and,if so,
> which? Equally, I would be just as interested to hear the
> reasoning from from an institution which considered, but then
> rejected, this path.
>
> I have spent a couple browsing through the archives of this
> maillist of hours and at the CAQDAS website (and I'm sure I
> am an enriched and more worthwhile person because of this :-)
> ) trying to get a small insight into the discipline, and a
> handle on current practice. It seems to me that there are
> drawbacks in choosing to offer just one source of QDA
> software. My readings seem to suggest that the different QDA
> software packages address different aspects of the discipline
> and that to home in exclusively on a particular package might
> preclude certain types of analysis. Is this a reasonable
> conclusion? An alternative view that has been expressed to me
> is that Nvivo will handle the vast majority of the analyses
> that might be needed. I would be most interested in ony
> comments on that statement?
>
> Thanks for reading this. I do take the point, made repeatedly
> in the mailing list, that I ought to download the sample
> software available and try it, but my lack of knowledge of
> the discipline would make this a fairly pointless excercise.
> Thanks in anticipitation for any responses. Best wishes, Paddy
>
> --
> Paddy Riley, Statistician,
> Academic Computing Services, Cripps Computing Centre,
> University of Nottingham, UK
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: +44 115 951 3350 Fax: +44 115 951 3353
>
|