Does the graphical representation make it easier to understand?
Totally befuddled!
So I agree with your point - there's a danger that one forgets the original
text and gets lost in confuserised abstraction. How well can a confuser
model real world events/episodes/phenomena/stories (do these grab the whole
qually bag?) anyway?
-----Original Message-----
From: qual-software [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Thomas Muhr
Sent: 16 April 2003 16:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: QDA Software for Coding with Conceptual Graphs
Our QDA software - ATLAS.ti - supports network modeling on semantic and
episodic level via user definable sets of relations. Through semantic
retrieval (and relation properties like transitivity), you may yield all
constituents of a proposition. In addition, rhetorical structures can be
represented on the data level via named hyper links. So it fits a number of
approaches like action theory, grounded theory or argumentation analysis
quite well.
However, there is some drawback with all such representation techniques if
used beyond browsing or "heuristic" mind mapping. They look really pretty
for trivial examples but can get quite complex and loose some of their
expressive power when it comes to modeling real world episodes.
Here is a textual output of a network fragment from ATLAS.ti with both
semantic and episodic knowledge representing different interpretations of
the "birds" ("Millers saw the cranes when they were flying over the alps")
example:
Action_x
<agens>: Agent_x
<instr>: Instrument_x
<loc>: Loc_ationx
<objekt>: Object_x
<recip>: Recipient_x
<time>: Time_x
fly_over_1
<loc>: Alps
<instance-of>: fly_over
<agens>: Millers
<instr>: Plane_1
<time>: Time_x
fly_over_2
<loc>: Alps
<agens>: Cranes
<instance-of>: fly_over
<instr>: Self_1
<time>: Time_x
Human Being
O: Living Thing
-<instance-of>: Millers
Living Thing
-O: Bird
-O: Human Being
The graphic network looks a little better but would make this mail a little
larger!-)
- Thomas Muhr
At 15:37 14.04.2003 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm looking for software that supports coding and qualitative analysis with
>conceptual graphs (CGs). Rather than codes having single concepts, CGs
would
>allow structured coding statements consisting of multiple associated
concepts
>and conceptual relations to be used for greater expressiveness and
precision.
>See links and example below.
>
>This capability was discussed by the Richards' paper (1994?) Using
>Computers in
>Qualitative Research, in the section on "Conceptual Network Systems", but
it
>doesn't seem to have made it into the advertized features of current QDA
>software. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>John Hanna
>-------------------------------------
>For CG references, see
>http://www.cs.uah.edu/~delugach/CG/
>
>For examples, see
>http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/cg/cgstand.htm
>
>Given English sentence "John is going to Boston by bus" in a PD selection.
>
>propositional content would be...
>
>Go has an agent which is a person John.
>Go has a destination which is a city Boston.
>Go has an instrument which is a bus.
>
>and the CG would be...
>
>[Go]-
> (Agnt)->[Person: John]
> (Dest)->[City: Boston]
> (Inst)->[Bus].
>
>which can be processed using graph operations and logic for building
theory.
>-------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________
„Computers, like every technology, are a vehicle for the transformation
of tradition“ (Winograd & Flores, 1987)
Scientific Software Development - Berlin - www.atlasti.de
Dipl.-Psych. Dipl.-Inform. Thomas Muhr - [log in to unmask]
Support: [log in to unmask] Sales: [log in to unmask]
|