urr, well, considering the time involved in typing all the literature into
the confuser in order to code it, I would just read the stuff - most
literature reviews have to deal with a range of techniques and approaches,
so reading the literature, understanding where each author is coming from,
grouping according to the main approaches used (i.e. quant vs qual,
different types of qual, experimental versus case study etc) and writing up
is the best way. Using CAQDAS just adds an unnecessary level of complexity
and time which you just don't need.
Now if you happen to have all your literature on-line that reduces the time
involved in transcribing, but I still question whether it's worthwhile or
just adds to the potential for confusion...
Sarah Delaney
-----Original Message-----
From: qual-software [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
John Powell
Sent: 02 May 2003 10:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: thematic coding / conceptual mapping of a body of research
evidence
Hi all
has anyone used qualitative software for thematic coding / conceptual
mapping of a body of research evidence? I.E. I want to review the literature
in a particular area but the research methods and theoretical persepctives
used have been very disparate and I do not think standard systematic review
techniques are best suited - I think a thematic analysis would be better and
I wondered if anyone had found qualitative software useful in a similar
situation? (and which software would be best suited?)
many thanks for any help!
John
|