I can agree with Clive Seal that I ought to have some empirical exampels
in my paper. I have though actually read several doctoral thesises from the
UK, America and scandinavia which according to my scientific view support
the discussion/hypotheses that I bring forward in my paper. I would also
like to say that the lack of theoretical abstractions in the analysis in
many qualitative papers/reports is not related to using QDA software or
not. My point is, as I am saying in the paper, that with the help of QDA
software a lot of the operations (e.g. the coding process, searching) can
be done so easy so there is a danger that the theoretical work/abstractions
could easily be necleted in the analysis. People tend to be so impressed
and fasinated (which ofcourse is fine and of great importance in the
workprocess) by the empirical findings and foreget that (as I see it )
reality is differentieated. There is a reality ´behind´the empirical
reality. To ´rearch´ this domain of reality we need the help of social
theory. I have one exemapel in my paper which I got from a list, one
person saying:
´Basically I stayed very close to the data often using the actual words
the participants used as "asking for help" and "seeking information".
This is fine as long as you do not stop there. And this is the problem as I
see it, many seems to stop the analysis here. The result will be a result
that has a strong resemblance to our everyday language and a low level of
abstraction. Sort of common-sence emphasis of namegiving and sorting data.
´Scientifically sicgnificant generality does not lie in the face of the
world but in the hidden essence of thing´ (Bhaskar 1997:227).
Regarding Clive´s point about N´Vivo I think he has misunderstood my point.
I do not make any statements about what N´Vivo users do or not do in their
analysis of qualitative data. As Clive says the software has just been
released. What I am saying is that just naming the software N´Vivo (in vivo
codes/categories are those found directly in the data as statements by the
respondents; see A. Strauss 1987, page 33, Qualitative Analysis for Social
Scientist) is
at the same time an expression of an attitude or I way of thinking in
relation to qualitative research/analysis. The software developers for whom
I have great respect and hopefully a good relation, has ofcourse been
inspired by Glaser and Strauss in givning the software the new name. My
point of view is that the thaughts of Glaser and Strauss have been of great
importance for the development of qualitative research. But I also think
that there is time to go further,- to develop there thoughts.
Yours sincerely
Dr. Odd Lindberg
Fil.Dr. Odd Lindberg
Örebro universitet
Inst. för samhällsvetenskap
701 82 Örebro
Sverige
Tel. + 4619303094
Fax. + 4619303484
E-mail; [log in to unmask]
Dr. Odd Lindberg (Ph.D.)
Senior lecturer
University of Orebro
Dept of Social Science
S - 701 82 Orebro
Sweden
Tel. + 4619303094
Fax. + 4619303484
E-mail; [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|