I support the point being made here as I did the same thing with
responsibility as it started to emerge as the key issue for my
participants. How they defined themselves as acting responsibly in the
face of genetic risk was the basic process that I was looking for in my
data. It was very useful to run check searches to refine the variations
that existed. And to do this with related terms. Claudia Downing. On Tue,
8 Jun 1999, Birrell Walsh wrote:
> Lyn Richards said:
>
> > There are uses for this sort of first-stage scoop coding that
> > are quite new to qualitative computing. I've found with N4 that this
> > sort of scooping-up of data gives a nice way of re-seeing themes - you
> > get surprising juxtapositions of material, or passages you'd missed, and
> > you can move between the finds and the context re-viewing, removing
> > material that shouldn't be there and expanding context appropriately.
> > And then by coding-on you can store these new ideas and pursue them.
> > Wouldn't call that "autocoding", though...
> >
>
> One of the uses I most appreciate for autocoding is the
> quick-check-of-a-mid-project-idea - QCOAMPI? I recall that when I was
> evaluating NUD*IST on a project, it occurred to me half-way through the
> coding that "door" was an important metaphor for my informant. I was
> able to autocode on the words "door" and "doors" and discover in about
> 20 seconds that yes indeed, this *was* an important idea. Because the
> software's autocoding facilitated the QCOAMPI, I could follow up on what
> might be hare-brained idea without sacrificing hours to it. And because
> I did, I confirmed something important. I was very grateful.
>
> Birrell Walsh
> MicroTimes
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|