Re Clive's and Odd's discussion, here's a comment on two names.
Fristly, NVivo. It's a nickname, just as N4 is. It's short for NUD*IST
Vivo (NUD*IST Alive). We were looking for an N-name to note the sibling
relationship with N4, and a word to celebrate the "live" characteristics
of the software we'd aimed for, the end of plain flat text. So the Vivo
is for all that: rich text, edit while you code, compound documents,
DataLinks, modelling. The ability to do "In Vivo" coding, selecting the
code word from the text, is just one of many new coding tools, not new
and not subtle, not actually particularly live, just a useful trick.
Certainly not a core process. What's new in NVivo is primarily not ways
of coding, but other ways of thinking qualitatively.
Secondly, grounded theory.
Odd wrote of NVivo:
The software developers for whom I have great respect and hopefully a
good relation, has of course been inspired by Glaser and Strauss in
givning the software the new name.
The respect is mutual, Odd, but you're historically wrong! The pun
occurred to us after the name. but more importantly, the assumption's
methodologically misleading. NVivo, whilst hopefully it will please a
lot of grounded theory researchers, will do so not because it codes in
particular ways but because it's designed to challenge the dominant
paradigm of access-via-coding in qualitative computing. This should not
strengthen the myth that qualitative software primarily pursues or
supports grounded theory. That myth has been around in the (limited)
debates on qualitative computing for too long - indeed in my view its
persistence indicates how startlingly little critique those debates
contain. I argued this in a paper at British Sociological Assn last
month (**please don't ask for it over this forum!! It will go up on the
QSR website later this month***)
There has been for some time a dire suspicion of what Coffey and
Atkinson in Socresearch online called "the unnecessarily close equation
of grounded theory, coding and software". (ref at end). But who makes
such an equation? Not the founders of grounded theory. Whilst Strauss
was generous with his time and interest to developers, he was very
cautious about software use, and Glaser has stated publicly that he
opposes it. And the last equation grounded theory methodologists would
make is between GT and coding if by coding is meant coding of text for
retrieval by topic. Nor is this "equation" made by developers - whilst
some, (inspired, yes, by working with Strauss,) have striven for ways of
assisting the generating of categories from data and open coding
techniques, none claim their programs are equated with GT.
My own guess is that this "equation" is due to the smudging of methods
whereby for some researchers qualitative work is synonyous with grounded
theory. Qualitative computing isn't innocent in this; it's made
qualitative methods seem more accessible, and encouraged a form of data
handling that I've termed "pattern analysis", the description of
patterns in rich data, rather than seeking of theory. It's not new -
and certainly not the "fault" of software - lots did it with manual
methods. But computer supported code and retrieve makes it much easier
and more confident. There's nothing wrong with pattern analysis: seeing
a pattern beats not seeing one. But it isn't grounded theory. Which has
a lot to do with the parallel discussion on software training - but
that's enough stirring for a Sunday and it's after midnight here.
cheers
Lyn
footnotes:
In a related current discussion on QSR-Forum last week, Tim Lavalli
wrote; Equating qualitative research with Grounded Theory is like
equating New York with the United States or France with Europe."
Equating qualitative computing with Grounded Theory is surely more
bizarre: software offers toolkits for research processes; grounded
theory offers one of many methodological approaches to the tasks of
theory generation and theory construction.
The Coffey et al paper and linked debates are at COFFEY, A., HOLBROOK,
B. & ATKINSON, P. 1996. 'Qualitative data analysis: technologies and
representations', Sociological Research Online, vol. 1, no. 1,
<http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/1/4.html <../1/4.html>
Lyn Richards,
Research Professor of Qualitative Methodology, University of Western
Sydney,
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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|