Hello Ann, just to clarify
Quoting Ann Lewins <[log in to unmask]>:
> I suppose my concern is that I feel
> Thomas
> is assuming that 'coding' IS the analysis and thats what defines your
> approach - and to my mind its NOT.
I thought I made this clear already, but alas I seem to have misstated my
point somewhat. I write:
"Probably the most frequent misguidance of research through CAQDAS is the
temptation to substitute analysis with coding."
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/research/software/caqdas_primer.htm
l
Thus, I do *not* advocate the substitution of analysis through coding, but
my gut feeling with some research I am reading is that that is precisely
what has happened in some cases (I am unsure if CAQDAS is a major culprit
for this development, but it sure lends itself to such "approach"). That
does not mean btw, that straightforward positivist coding follows from
CAQDAS use, the two merely share an elective affinity (Wahlverwandschaft).
To reiterate, it also does not mean that coding is a bad thing per se, but
I would caution against certain types of coding, particularly a "let the
data speak" approach, which runs against not only my epistemological
convictions (post-positivism aka Critical Rationalism), but also against
many other epistemologies and theoretical approaches (e.g. Critical Theory,
but also certain strands of Social Constructionism).
Other theoretical approaches, notably Logical Positivism and newer
qualitative approaches, which value authenticity and local knowledge not as
data but as part of the theory itself would have fewer, if any, problems
with such proceeding.
In summary, strictly speaking from a purely logical point of view, CAQDAS
are, of course, methodology neutral. After all, it's the software user, who
decides, how and when to use a software. But for those, who have no firm
convictions of methodology and/or epistemology, CAQDAS might prove an
incentive to employ some methods rather than other.
Thomas
|