Ray Lee and I make the point to which Lyn refers below (re the myth of qual
software equating to GT) in our book 'Computer analysis and qualitative
research'. The point is made both empirically, by reference to the research
we did on users of qual software, and methodologically, by reference to
features of software which are not oriented to GT. I am extending the
argument in something I'm writing for a forthcoming handbook on qualitative
method.
I agree with Lyn that these debates could be more extensive, although there
is now a considerable literature commenting on qualitative software. I
think the problem is that this topic has been seen as a specialist sideshow
by qualitative researchers and methodologists. Rather than treat software
issues as relevant to a number of contemporary debates in qualitative
research and qualitative method, it is seen as a separate topic. A flagrant
example is the Denzin and Lincoln handbook; the editors actually refer to
the use of qual software as a separate 'method' or 'approach to analysis'
(i.e., alongside 'feminist analysis' or 'ethnomethodology').
>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
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|