Dear Lyn,

Good to hear from you and many thanks for the information on resources.  We
will make sure that these are drawn to the attention of workshop participants.

Kind regards,
Annie

At 00:00 14/09/2004 +0100, you wrote:

>There are 8 messages totalling 815 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics of the day:
>
>   1. Teaching qualitative research to psychology students at undergraduate
>      level
>   2. AW: FREE UK Methodology Training Seminars (including Software Training)
>   3. addition to CAQDAS terminology
>   4. QDAS/CAQDAS terminology, was: Re: AW: FREE UK Methodology Training
>      Seminars (including Software Training) (4)
>   5. QDAS/CAQDAS terminology, was: Re: AW: FREE UK Methodology Train
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date:    Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:24:01 +1000
>From:    Lyn Richards <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Teaching qualitative research to psychology students at
>undergraduate level
>
>Good news that such seminars are happening for teachers, Annie!
>
>For info: there are considerable free resources for teachers teaching =
>qualitative research with QSR software now. We found this was the best =
>way to deal with the demand for help. The workshop handbooks and Getting =
>Started manuals for N6 and NVivo are free in pdf version on the website =
>with other stuff on a "Resources for Teachers" page - and can be freely =
>duplicated. =
>http://www.qsrinternational.com/resources/teachingmaterials/teaching_mate=
>rials.htm.
>
>There is also a Teachers' Handbook - you can buy a spiffy version from =
>the website or email [log in to unmask]  for a free pdf version.
>
>And the second conference on Teaching Qualitative Methods with QSR =
>Software Tools is now scheduled for April 5-8, 2005 at the Friedrick =
>Center, University of Wisconsin -Madison. The format will be similar to =
>the first event, with both a two day working conference and and two days =
>of tutorials. There are other resources on their website at =
>http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/tqm/. And the papers from the first were =
>published in a special issue of the Qualitative Research Journal and are =
>free online at http://www.latrobe.edu.au/aqr/.
>
>cheers,=20
>Lyn=20
>
>Lyn Richards,=20
>Director, Research Services, QSR.=20
>(Email) [log in to unmask]
>(Ph) +61 (03) 9840-1100. (Fax) +61 (03) 9840-1500=20
>(Snail) Second floor, 651 Doncaster Rd.,=20
>Doncaster, Vic 3108, Australia.=20
>http://www.qsrinternational.com=20
>
>
>=20
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: qual-software [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On=20
> > Behalf Of Annie Trapp
> > Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2004 12:28 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Teaching qualitative research to psychology students=20
> > at undergraduate level
> >=20
> > WORKSHOP
> > Teaching qualitative research to psychology students at=20
> > undergraduate level 29th September 2004
> >=20
> > This workshop may be of interest to course leaders=20
> > responsible for the design of research methods courses on=20
> > undergraduate programmes; lecturers and tutors teaching or=20
> > supervising qualitative research on undergraduate psychology=20
> > programmes
> >=20
> > Further details and booking form at
> > http://ltsnpsy.york.ac.uk/LTSNASP/listevents.asp
> >=20
> > Description:
> > Teaching qualitative research to psychology students at=20
> > undergraduate level The teaching of qualitative research=20
> > methods can pose a challenge for psychology departments that=20
> > have an already crowded research methods course dedicated to=20
> > quantitative research methods or that lack sufficient staff=20
> > trained in qualitative research methods. Yet the QAA=20
> > benchmarks state that psychology graduates should be able to=20
> > analyse data using both quantitative and qualitative methods=20
> > and, in practice, students often opt for project work that=20
> > where qualitative research methods would be appropriate.
> >=20
> > Cost (=A3): Free
> >=20
> > Location: LTSN Psychology, University of York
> >=20
> > Website: http://ltsnpsy.york.ac.uk/LTSNASP/listevents.asp
> >=20
> > Contact: Karen Criddle
> > [log in to unmask]
> > 01904 433154
> > 01904 433181
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Annie
> > Trapp=20
> >=20
> > Higher Education Academy Psychology Network (formerly LTSN=20
> > Psychology) Department of Psychology, University of York,=20
> > York YO1 5DD, UK
> >=20
> > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > Fax:   +44 (0)1904 433181
> > Tel:     +44 (0)1904 433156
> >=20
> > www.psychology.ltsn.ac.uk
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:26:04 +0200
>From:    Susanne Friese <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: AW: FREE UK Methodology Training Seminars (including Software
>Training)
>
>Thomas,
>
> > These seminars will examine the problems, issues, and benefits of using
> > so-called qualitative computer software (CAQDAS) in research;
>
>I just wanted to point out that the acronym CAQDAS does not stand for
>"so-called qualitative computer software". Phrases like that or even worth
>qualitative data analysis software contribute further to the
>misunderstandings relatedd to CAQDAS.
>
>CADAS stands for COMPUTER-AIDED QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWRAE !!!!!! It
>helps and supports us, but it does NOT analyse the data (as all know who
>apply software in their work). The often wrong description prevents people
>from using software to support the analysis of their qualitative data. The
>first package was launched almost 20 years ago and why do we still need to
>write (to quote Thomas)
>
>"Social scientists increasingly need to know about these programs and be
>able to operate them....." Why social scientists still don't know about
>these packages even though they are around for almost 20 years?
>
>Referring to them as "so-called qualitative computer software" does not help
>the cause - in my opinion.
>
>Susanne
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:11:54 +0200
>From:    Susanne Friese <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: addition to CAQDAS terminology
>
>dear list members,
>
>in a private mail, it has been pointed out to me that may response to
>Thomas' free seminar accounement may have been a bit too harsh. Sorry if it
>sounded like that. The background is that I am often confronted with people
>that  reject the application of software for qualitative data analysis
>flat-out and often because of misunderstandings or too little knowledge.
>Terminologies like qualitative data analysis software contribute to this.
>
>It has been further pointed out to me that I use the term myself on my
>webpage - though, not without explaining it. This however should not be an
>excuse - it just sits there since 1997 when the web page was first written
>and the term QDA software was mostly used - it will disappear from my page
>within the next couple of days....
>
>Susanne
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:13:28 +0100
>From:    Thomas Koenig <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: QDAS/CAQDAS terminology, was: Re: AW: FREE UK Methodology
>Training Seminars (including Software Training)
>
>Susanne,
>At 09:26 13/09/2004, you wrote:
> >[Thomas' (my) announcement:]
> > > "so-called qualitative computer software (CAQDAS)" in research;
> >
> >I just wanted to point out that the acronym CAQDAS does not stand for
> >"so-called qualitative computer software". Phrases like that or even worth
> >qualitative data analysis software contribute further to the
> >misunderstandings relatedd to CAQDAS.
>
>
>Ooops, sorry that was indeed a very clumsy term, after all, all software is
>implicitly designed for computers. Thank you for pointing me to this.
>
>However, I changed it in the HTML version now to the term you loathe so
>much, namely into, "so-called qualitative data analysis software", and here
>is why:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/4bzxj
>
>(original URL:
>http://googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=computer-assisted-qualitative-data-analysis-software&q2=qualitative-data-analysis-software+-computer-assisted-qualitative-data-analysis-software&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)
>
>Atlas.ti, NVivo and Co. are in fact called "qualitative data analysis
>software," even if this might be a misleading term when taken literally. It
>is, however, misleading, not because of its missing "computer-assisted," as
>you seem to imply. I think "computer-assisted" is implicit in the term
>"qualitative data analysis software" (who would write "computer-assisted
>statistical software packages"?). Instead, it is IMO misleading, because
>"qualitative data," i.e. unstructured data, can be analyzed with the help
>of all sorts of programs, including so-called quantitative packages like
>Textpack or Diction. However, (computer-assisted) qualitative data analysis
>software, better known as CAQDAS, sometimes also QDAS, has become a term
>that denotes only "code-and-retrieve software for various types of data,
>which increasingly allows for the visualization of relationships between
>data bits, codes, and/or theoretical concepts" (CRSFVTDIAVRDBCTC, aka 3rd
>generation CAQDAS). Obviously, the acronym "CAQDAS" is far easier to
>pronounce and more and more people know, which software is subsumed under
>the heading "CAQDAS." Those, who are not familiar with the term "CAQDAS"
>will most likely know the term "qualitative data analysis software", as
>googlefight shows. Therefore I will stick with it, even though I prefer to
>use the acronym.
>
> >CADAS stands for COMPUTER-AIDED QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWRAE !!!!!! It
> >helps and supports us, but it does NOT analyse the data (as all know who
> >apply software in their work). The often wrong description prevents people
> >from using software to support the analysis of their qualitative data.
>
>Frankly, I doubt that a careless naming of the programs in question really
>has such far-reaching consequences, as to "prevent people from using" it.
>
> >  The
> >first package was launched almost 20 years ago and why do we still need to
> >write (to quote Thomas)
> >
> >"Social scientists increasingly need to know about these programs and be
> >able to operate them....." Why social scientists still don't know about
> >these packages even though they are around for almost 20 years?
>
>I dunno, but fact is: CAQDAS are less well-known than they could/should be.
>
>There are a number of reasons, why that might be the case. Off the top of
>my head, I can think of:
>
>(1) Institutional inertia: Many longer established academics and some of
>their research students are simply unfamiliar with CAQDAS. Even, if they
>know such software exists, chances are they do not know, what the software
>can and cannot do. And even, if they know about the software, it might
>still be the case that it may be irrelevant for the methodology they use.
>
>(2) Userfriendliness of the software: Up until a few years ago, DOS-based
>programs where quite common. Now, any program, which is not immediately
>intelligble to its user will have problems with respect to its spread. Take
>structural equation models (SEM): Command-based LISREL existed for over 20
>years, without too many sociologists doing SEM. Along came AMOS in 1997
>with a visual interface, and voila, publications drawing on SEM mushroomed
>since then. BTW, LISREL followed unsurprisingly suit.
>
>(3) The costs might in some cases be turn out prohibitive. Academics are
>not used to pay for software, so that might be another obstacle to the
>spread of CAQDAS.
>
>There are number of other reasons, which would spring to my mind, before I
>would think of "poor labeling."
>
>Thomas
>
>--
>thomas koenig
>department of social sciences, loughborough university
>http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/index.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:55:21 +0100
>From:    "Raymond M. Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: QDAS/CAQDAS terminology, was: Re: AW: FREE UK Methodology
>Training Seminars (including Software Training)
>
>As the person who originally coined the term CAQDAS (one sunny
>afternoon in Nigel Fielding's office), I deliberately included the
>words 'computer-assisted' to emphasise that software needs always to be
>used within a framework of methodological awareness and reflection. (A
>point that has been re-emphasised over and over again by developers and
>informed commentators ever since.) Of course, I have no control over
>how other people use the term, but I've never restricted it to
>code-and-retrieve software.
>I took Suzanne to be responding not to the acronym itself but to the
>adjective 'so-called'. 'So-called' has two contradictory meanings in
>English. One is to indicate that a phrase used is a term of art. The
>other and more common usage is to refer to something in a sarcastic
>manner. If Thomas deliberately used the term with the latter intention,
>then those who have striven over the years for a sophisticated
>understanding of the possibilities and limitations of software packages
>used to facilitate qualitative data analysis have some grounds for
>feeling offended.
>
>
>On 13 Sep 2004, at 4:13 pm, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>Susanne,
>At 09:26 13/09/2004, you wrote:
> > [Thomas' (my) announcement:]
> > > "so-called qualitative computer software (CAQDAS)" in research;
> >
> > I just wanted to point out that the acronym CAQDAS does not stand for
> > "so-called qualitative computer software". Phrases like that or even
> > worth
> > qualitative data analysis software contribute further to the
> > misunderstandings relatedd to CAQDAS.
>
>
>Ooops, sorry that was indeed a very clumsy term, after all, all
>software is
>implicitly designed for computers. Thank you for pointing me to this.
>
>However, I changed it in the HTML version now to the term you loathe so
>much, namely into, "so-called qualitative data analysis software", and
>here
>is why:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/4bzxj
>
>(original URL:
>http://googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=computer-assisted-
>qualitative-data-analysis-software&q2=qualitative-data-analysis-
>software+-computer-assisted-qualitative-data-analysis-
>software&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)
>
>Atlas.ti, NVivo and Co. are in fact called "qualitative data analysis
>software," even if this might be a misleading term when taken
>literally. It
>is, however, misleading, not because of its missing
>"computer-assisted," as
>you seem to imply. I think "computer-assisted" is implicit in the term
>"qualitative data analysis software" (who would write "computer-assisted
>statistical software packages"?). Instead, it is IMO misleading, because
>"qualitative data," i.e. unstructured data, can be analyzed with the
>help
>of all sorts of programs, including so-called quantitative packages like
>Textpack or Diction. However, (computer-assisted) qualitative data
>analysis
>software, better known as CAQDAS, sometimes also QDAS, has become a term
>that denotes only "code-and-retrieve software for various types of data,
>which increasingly allows for the visualization of relationships between
>data bits, codes, and/or theoretical concepts" (CRSFVTDIAVRDBCTC, aka
>3rd
>generation CAQDAS). Obviously, the acronym "CAQDAS" is far easier to
>pronounce and more and more people know, which software is subsumed
>under
>the heading "CAQDAS." Those, who are not familiar with the term "CAQDAS"
>will most likely know the term "qualitative data analysis software", as
>googlefight shows. Therefore I will stick with it, even though I prefer
>to
>use the acronym.
>
> > CADAS stands for COMPUTER-AIDED QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWRAE
> > !!!!!! It
> > helps and supports us, but it does NOT analyse the data (as all know
> > who
> > apply software in their work). The often wrong description prevents
> > people
> > from using software to support the analysis of their qualitative data.
>
>Frankly, I doubt that a careless naming of the programs in question
>really
>has such far-reaching consequences, as to "prevent people from using"
>it.
>
> >  The
> > first package was launched almost 20 years ago and why do we still
> > need to
> > write (to quote Thomas)
> >
> > "Social scientists increasingly need to know about these programs and
> > be
> > able to operate them....." Why social scientists still don't know about
> > these packages even though they are around for almost 20 years?
>
>I dunno, but fact is: CAQDAS are less well-known than they could/should
>be.
>
>There are a number of reasons, why that might be the case. Off the top
>of
>my head, I can think of:
>
>(1) Institutional inertia: Many longer established academics and some of
>their research students are simply unfamiliar with CAQDAS. Even, if they
>know such software exists, chances are they do not know, what the
>software
>can and cannot do. And even, if they know about the software, it might
>still be the case that it may be irrelevant for the methodology they
>use.
>
>(2) Userfriendliness of the software: Up until a few years ago,
>DOS-based
>programs where quite common. Now, any program, which is not immediately
>intelligble to its user will have problems with respect to its spread.
>Take
>structural equation models (SEM): Command-based LISREL existed for over
>20
>years, without too many sociologists doing SEM. Along came AMOS in 1997
>with a visual interface, and voila, publications drawing on SEM
>mushroomed
>since then. BTW, LISREL followed unsurprisingly suit.
>
>(3) The costs might in some cases be turn out prohibitive. Academics are
>not used to pay for software, so that might be another obstacle to the
>spread of CAQDAS.
>
>There are number of other reasons, which would spring to my mind,
>before I
>would think of "poor labeling."
>
>Thomas
>
>--
>thomas koenig
>department of social sciences, loughborough university
>http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/index.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:25:50 +0100
>From:    Thomas Koenig <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: QDAS/CAQDAS terminology, was: Re: AW: FREE UK Methodology
>Training Seminars (including Software Training)
>
>Raymond,
>
>I obviously did not express myself clearly enough, my apologies. I used the
>term so-called "qualitative data analysis software" not in a sarcastic
>manner, but, because my hunch is, that it is the most commonly used term
>for CAQDAS -- besides CAQDAS itself ("qualitative software" also comes to
>mind). Thus, I was using the term "so-called" in the sense of "commonly
>named, popularly so termed." My hunch is that particularly those, who are
>still unfamiliar with the acronym CAQDAS seem to use the term "qualitative
>data analysis software" without the preceeding "computer-assisted." My
>explorations through googlefight, while far from being comprehensive, seem
>to initially support that thesis: The phrase "qualititative data analysis
>software" not being preceeded by "computer-assisted" is almost five times
>more frequent than "computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software."
>(The frequencies ratio increase to almost twenty times, when you exclude
>pages mentioning the acronym CAQDAS from the search).
>
>I also used the term "so-called," precisely because I wanted to distance
>myself from the rather ambigious term "qualitative data analysis software."
>Instead, I would favor simply sticking with the acronym, which in my view
>is far more precise than any lengthy circumscription: People who know the
>term "CAQDAS" know which programs commonly qualify as CAQDAS. In the
>HTML-Version (http://lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/seminars.html), where a
>little Window explaining the literal meaning of the acronym pops-up, when
>the mouse pointer is moved over the acronym, which makes it hopefully less
>ambigious; I also inserted now a "more aptly termed" in front of CAQDAS and
>replaced "so-called" by "what is frequently called."
>
>I also did not intend the label to be restricted to "code and retrieve"
>software, as my rather awkward, lengthy description was intended to show.
>
>Having said that, I have a question: I would not count fs/QCA
>(http://www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin/fsqca.htm) towards CAQDAS, because, while
>I do think that CAQDAS are not restricted to "code and retrieve," programs
>that do not have some sort of code and retrieval functions are not commonly
>associated with CAQDAS.
>
>Hope, that clears it up.
>
>Thomas
>
>At 16:55 13/09/2004, you wrote:
> >As the person who originally coined the term CAQDAS (one sunny
> >afternoon in Nigel Fielding's office), I deliberately included the
> >words 'computer-assisted' to emphasise that software needs always to be
> >used within a framework of methodological awareness and reflection. (A
> >point that has been re-emphasised over and over again by developers and
> >informed commentators ever since.) Of course, I have no control over
> >how other people use the term, but I've never restricted it to
> >code-and-retrieve software.
> >I took Suzanne to be responding not to the acronym itself but to the
> >adjective 'so-called'. 'So-called' has two contradictory meanings in
> >English. One is to indicate that a phrase used is a term of art. The
> >other and more common usage is to refer to something in a sarcastic
> >manner. If Thomas deliberately used the term with the latter intention,
> >then those who have striven over the years for a sophisticated
> >understanding of the possibilities and limitations of software packages
> >used to facilitate qualitative data analysis have some grounds for
> >feeling offended.
> >
> >
> >On 13 Sep 2004, at 4:13 pm, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >
> >Susanne,
> >At 09:26 13/09/2004, you wrote:
> >>[Thomas' (my) announcement:]
> >> > "so-called qualitative computer software (CAQDAS)" in research;
> >>
> >>I just wanted to point out that the acronym CAQDAS does not stand for
> >>"so-called qualitative computer software". Phrases like that or even
> >>worth
> >>qualitative data analysis software contribute further to the
> >>misunderstandings relatedd to CAQDAS.
> >
> >
> >Ooops, sorry that was indeed a very clumsy term, after all, all
> >software is
> >implicitly designed for computers. Thank you for pointing me to this.
> >
> >However, I changed it in the HTML version now to the term you loathe so
> >much, namely into, "so-called qualitative data analysis software", and
> >here
> >is why:
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/4bzxj
> >
> >(original URL:
> >http://googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=computer-assisted-
> >qualitative-data-analysis-software&q2=qualitative-data-analysis-
> >software+-computer-assisted-qualitative-data-analysis-
> >software&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)
> >
> >Atlas.ti, NVivo and Co. are in fact called "qualitative data analysis
> >software," even if this might be a misleading term when taken
> >literally. It
> >is, however, misleading, not because of its missing
> >"computer-assisted," as
> >you seem to imply. I think "computer-assisted" is implicit in the term
> >"qualitative data analysis software" (who would write "computer-assisted
> >statistical software packages"?). Instead, it is IMO misleading, because
> >"qualitative data," i.e. unstructured data, can be analyzed with the
> >help
> >of all sorts of programs, including so-called quantitative packages like
> >Textpack or Diction. However, (computer-assisted) qualitative data
> >analysis
> >software, better known as CAQDAS, sometimes also QDAS, has become a term
> >that denotes only "code-and-retrieve software for various types of data,
> >which increasingly allows for the visualization of relationships between
> >data bits, codes, and/or theoretical concepts" (CRSFVTDIAVRDBCTC, aka
> >3rd
> >generation CAQDAS). Obviously, the acronym "CAQDAS" is far easier to
> >pronounce and more and more people know, which software is subsumed
> >under
> >the heading "CAQDAS." Those, who are not familiar with the term "CAQDAS"
> >will most likely know the term "qualitative data analysis software", as
> >googlefight shows. Therefore I will stick with it, even though I prefer
> >to
> >use the acronym.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:55:35 -0600
>From:    John Seidel <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: QDAS/CAQDAS terminology, was: Re: AW: FREE UK Methodology Train
>
>Thomas,
>
> >>"Social scientists increasingly need to know about these programs and be
> >>able to operate them....." Why social scientists still don't know about
> >>these packages even though they are around for almost 20 years?
> >
> >I dunno, but fact is: CAQDAS are less well-known than they could/should be.
>
>What evidence supports your claim that "CAQDAS are less well-known that
>they should be?"  What does "less well-known" mean?
>
>I find your speculation concerning intertia, userfriendliness, and cost
>interesting but unconvincing.  Your hypotheses may have been more
>convincing in 1990.  In fact I probably would have made the same arguments
>in 1990.  But but not in 2004.
>
>I would guess that if you add up the copies of Atlas, MaxQDA,
>HyperResearch. NVivo, N6, Ethnograph, Qualrus, Aquad etc. that are shipped
>each year the number would be at least 1000.  It could be 2000 to 5000 per
>year.  But I want to be very conservative because I am just guessing so I
>will stick with 1000.
>
>Further this has been the case for at least the last 10 years. Most of
>these have been available for 10 to 20 years.   So I think I could argue
>that over a 10 year period, at least 10,000 people have a copy of one of
>the above software packages.  This is a very conservative number given a 10
>year period.  It only assumes that 1000 people a year bought copies of one
>of these 7 software programs.  I know that number is larger, but I don't
>know by how much.
>
>Now, I think it is fair to assume that, over 10 years, those 10,000 people
>who own a copy of QDA software have told at least one person about it.  So,
>conservatively 20,000 people should know about at least one QDA software
>program.  It is possible that these numbers could be 2 to 5 times larger
>(20,000 to 50,000 and 40,000 to 100,00 respectively).
>
>Now given these very simple, and conservative estimates, I would say that
>there are a lot of people who know about QDA or CAQDAS or
>whatever.  Whether this means that QDA software is as well-known as it
>should be could be is a matter of conjecture.  As a software developer I
>would hope that we are only scratching the surface of the potential market.
>I don't think anyone knows the potential universe of QDA software
>users.  (Twenty years ago I thought it would be about 700. I am very happy
>to say that I was wrong!)   But as a social scientist I think it is fair to
>say that tens of thousands of social scientists at least know about QDA
>software, and that several thousand have used it at least once in the last
>10 years.
>
>Of course the levels of experience and expertise of these thousands of
>social scientists in qualitative research and data analysis is
>problematic.  Qualitative social scientists are a pretty heterogeneous
>lot.  What counts as experience and expertise is going to vary.  What
>counts as qualitative data is going to vary.   What counts as qualitative
>analysis is going to vary.  We still have to deal with the ghost of Paul
>Lazerfield (Qualitative Analysis, 1972), Martyn Hammersly's  critique of
>the qualitative claims of Herbert Blumer in The Dilemna of Qualitative
>Method (1989), David Morgan's work on Qual-Quant hybrids.  (I like David,
>aside from the fact that his ideas are crazy.  But he feels the same about
>me.  So we avoid these matters when we get together here in the qualitative
>asylumn.)  Anyway, this is just the tip of the qualitative issues iceberg.
>
>Also the extent to which the use of QDA software is appropriate and
>effective is another issue.  A small industry of consultants and trainers
>has emerged to help users address this issue.  The CAQDAS project at Surrey
>was a pioneer in this endeavor.  You appear to be joining this industry.
>Welcome! For many this is a full time job.  At the least it has kept Ann
>Lewins of CAQDAS  busy for many years. I hypothesize that this is possible
>only because QDA software is very well known.
>
>John
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:39:12 +0100
>From:    "Raymond M. Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: QDAS/CAQDAS terminology, was: Re: AW: FREE UK Methodology
>Training Seminars (including Software Training)
>
>Thanks, Thomas.
>Despite my earlier post, I've never felt particularly proprietorial
>about the term CAQDAS. (Neither I would guess does Nigel.) In everyday
>speech with colleagues I use the various terms you've mentioned more or
>less interchangeably. I tend to use the acronym CAQDAS, with an
>explanation, when I'm writing about software, though even then for
>reasons of stylistic variability I might also use the other terms,
>provided its clear what they refer back to. It doesn't seem to me that
>the terminology maps in any neat way onto particular categories of
>user, so I find the whole concern you express rather opaque.
>When I teach on the topic I make it very clear that there is a
>substantial and long-standing tradition concerned with the quantitative
>analysis of text, and I stress the advantages as well as the
>disadvantages of that approach. However, I do not regard purely
>enumerative approaches as falling under the ambit of CAQDAS. For me,
>however, fs/QCA is a CAQDAS package. Why? We have come to regard
>qualitative data as synonymous with textual data. This is the
>consequence of the unexamined impact of a technological innovation, the
>tape-recorder. (I have an article appearing soon in Sociology that
>looks at the impact of recording technologies.) But until people were
>able to produce verbatim transcriptions of (interview) speech, they
>tended to orient themselves to whole cases, often via techniques of
>case reduction. Moreover, one only has to think of Simmel or Goffman to
>realise that qualitative work has a strong strand of formalism running
>through it. I, therefore, see Ragin's approach as located solidly
>within the qualitative tradition, rather than being inimical to it.
>
>
>On 13 Sep 2004, at 7:25 pm, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>Raymond,
>
>I obviously did not express myself clearly enough, my apologies. I used
>the
>term so-called "qualitative data analysis software" not in a sarcastic
>manner, but, because my hunch is, that it is the most commonly used term
>for CAQDAS -- besides CAQDAS itself ("qualitative software" also comes
>to
>mind). Thus, I was using the term "so-called" in the sense of "commonly
>named, popularly so termed." My hunch is that particularly those, who
>are
>still unfamiliar with the acronym CAQDAS seem to use the term
>"qualitative
>data analysis software" without the preceeding "computer-assisted." My
>explorations through googlefight, while far from being comprehensive,
>seem
>to initially support that thesis: The phrase "qualititative data
>analysis
>software" not being preceeded by "computer-assisted" is almost five
>times
>more frequent than "computer-assisted qualitative data analysis
>software."
>(The frequencies ratio increase to almost twenty times, when you exclude
>pages mentioning the acronym CAQDAS from the search).
>
>I also used the term "so-called," precisely because I wanted to distance
>myself from the rather ambigious term "qualitative data analysis
>software."
>Instead, I would favor simply sticking with the acronym, which in my
>view
>is far more precise than any lengthy circumscription: People who know
>the
>term "CAQDAS" know which programs commonly qualify as CAQDAS. In the
>HTML-Version (http://lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/seminars.html),
>where a
>little Window explaining the literal meaning of the acronym pops-up,
>when
>the mouse pointer is moved over the acronym, which makes it hopefully
>less
>ambigious; I also inserted now a "more aptly termed" in front of CAQDAS
>and
>replaced "so-called" by "what is frequently called."
>
>I also did not intend the label to be restricted to "code and retrieve"
>software, as my rather awkward, lengthy description was intended to
>show.
>
>Having said that, I have a question: I would not count fs/QCA
>(http://www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin/fsqca.htm) towards CAQDAS, because,
>while
>I do think that CAQDAS are not restricted to "code and retrieve,"
>programs
>that do not have some sort of code and retrieval functions are not
>commonly
>associated with CAQDAS.
>
>Hope, that clears it up.
>
>Thomas
>
>At 16:55 13/09/2004, you wrote:
> > As the person who originally coined the term CAQDAS (one sunny
> > afternoon in Nigel Fielding's office), I deliberately included the
> > words 'computer-assisted' to emphasise that software needs always to be
> > used within a framework of methodological awareness and reflection. (A
> > point that has been re-emphasised over and over again by developers and
> > informed commentators ever since.) Of course, I have no control over
> > how other people use the term, but I've never restricted it to
> > code-and-retrieve software.
> > I took Suzanne to be responding not to the acronym itself but to the
> > adjective 'so-called'. 'So-called' has two contradictory meanings in
> > English. One is to indicate that a phrase used is a term of art. The
> > other and more common usage is to refer to something in a sarcastic
> > manner. If Thomas deliberately used the term with the latter intention,
> > then those who have striven over the years for a sophisticated
> > understanding of the possibilities and limitations of software packages
> > used to facilitate qualitative data analysis have some grounds for
> > feeling offended.
> >
> >
> > On 13 Sep 2004, at 4:13 pm, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >
> > Susanne,
> > At 09:26 13/09/2004, you wrote:
> >> [Thomas' (my) announcement:]
> >> > "so-called qualitative computer software (CAQDAS)" in research;
> >>
> >> I just wanted to point out that the acronym CAQDAS does not stand for
> >> "so-called qualitative computer software". Phrases like that or even
> >> worth
> >> qualitative data analysis software contribute further to the
> >> misunderstandings relatedd to CAQDAS.
> >
> >
> > Ooops, sorry that was indeed a very clumsy term, after all, all
> > software is
> > implicitly designed for computers. Thank you for pointing me to this.
> >
> > However, I changed it in the HTML version now to the term you loathe so
> > much, namely into, "so-called qualitative data analysis software", and
> > here
> > is why:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/4bzxj
> >
> > (original URL:
> > http://googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=computer-assisted-
> > qualitative-data-analysis-software&q2=qualitative-data-analysis-
> > software+-computer-assisted-qualitative-data-analysis-
> > software&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)
> >
> > Atlas.ti, NVivo and Co. are in fact called "qualitative data analysis
> > software," even if this might be a misleading term when taken
> > literally. It
> > is, however, misleading, not because of its missing
> > "computer-assisted," as
> > you seem to imply. I think "computer-assisted" is implicit in the term
> > "qualitative data analysis software" (who would write
> > "computer-assisted
> > statistical software packages"?). Instead, it is IMO misleading,
> > because
> > "qualitative data," i.e. unstructured data, can be analyzed with the
> > help
> > of all sorts of programs, including so-called quantitative packages
> > like
> > Textpack or Diction. However, (computer-assisted) qualitative data
> > analysis
> > software, better known as CAQDAS, sometimes also QDAS, has become a
> > term
> > that denotes only "code-and-retrieve software for various types of
> > data,
> > which increasingly allows for the visualization of relationships
> > between
> > data bits, codes, and/or theoretical concepts" (CRSFVTDIAVRDBCTC, aka
> > 3rd
> > generation CAQDAS). Obviously, the acronym "CAQDAS" is far easier to
> > pronounce and more and more people know, which software is subsumed
> > under
> > the heading "CAQDAS." Those, who are not familiar with the term
> > "CAQDAS"
> > will most likely know the term "qualitative data analysis software", as
> > googlefight shows. Therefore I will stick with it, even though I prefer
> > to
> > use the acronym.
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of QUAL-SOFTWARE Digest - 11 Sep 2004 to 13 Sep 2004 (#2004-128)
>********************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 27/08/2004

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie
Trapp

Higher Education Academy Psychology Network (formerly LTSN Psychology)
Department of Psychology, University of York, York YO1 5DD, UK

Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax:   +44 (0)1904 433181
Tel:     +44 (0)1904 433156

www.psychology.ltsn.ac.uk








---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 27/08/2004