Two different answers so far to Georgina's question about research
response to "ramble". Here's my third - absolutely accepting the other
two as well :-)
Birrell offered the caution
>I like to go through the text that I have not encoded for anything just
to see if I am missing something. Depending on the software you are
using the inquiry varies, but it amounts to "show me all the text not
coded at all."
Great advice (if you're using NUD*IST, Georgina, just do a Collect on
the relevant nodes and a "Not In" search gives you everything not coded
at them.)
John backed summaries:
> All you are doing, it seems to me, is doing some analysis before you
make your formal reports on
what the interviewees said, instead of after.
Incidentally, NUDIST works just as well with summaries as with
full transcripts.
More great advice - and please note the summary needn't delete the full
transcript if you have that. Append it to the transcript and code it and
just the parts of the transcript you don't want to lose - and then when
you find you need more context, Spread retrievals or use the hyperlink
Jump to to go back to the transcript.
My third and not incompatible answer is different because it's about
using the software to be more fluid and qualitative about coding. With
N4, I've started thinking in terms of what I call "Coding On". It's
sort of upside down coding. If you have the full transcript, code it
with broad sweeps, (or even automatically with text search) instead of
doing ritualistic "if it moves, code it" thorough coding. Then later, as
you start to feel more sure-footed, return to the node (not the original
document - but of course you can always jump straight there) and "code
on" in the Node Browser, making finer and more thoughtful selections,
spreading as necessary, and creating subtler and more theory-building
categories. And of course if you wish deleting the rambles you now know
are irrelevant from the original node. It's like drag-net fishing -
scoop it all up and throw out later what isn't wanted (and less
environmentally hazardous, since of course NUD*IST doesn't destroy the
original material).
I know I often get trapped in the coding cage and strongly believe
compulsive coding is the terrible legacy of the first generations of
qualitative computing. (Yeah, I have said it, a bit more politely, in
print :-) - my QHR paper on Closeness to Data earlier this year.) If
coding everything, including rambles, is seen as a duty to be done
before you start seeing anything, you're likely to forget why you ever
thought this was an interesting interview and highly unlikely to see the
broader picture. On the other hand Birrell is **right** to warn about
losing material. The inevitability of this problem is almost built into
the method - we're working qualitatively exactly because we don't know
at the start what we are going to find. "Coding on" faces the problem by
avoiding early loss of data and commitemnt to codes uninformed by data.
Code in broad sweeps, return to it later and think about the rambles in
context, moving swiftly between the idea and the original text in just
those places.
Hope that helps.
cheers
Lyn
Prof. Lyn Richards,
Research Professor of Qualitative Methodology, University of Western
Sydney, Macarthur,
Adjunct Professor, International Institute for Qualitative Methodology,
Edmonton.
Director, Research Services, Qualitative Solutions and Research.
(email) [log in to unmask]
(Ph) +61 3 9459 1699 (Fax) +61 3 9459 0435
(snail) Box 171, La Trobe University PO, Vic 3083, Australia.
http://www.qsr.com.au
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|