I like NUD*IST 4 Because:
I get a comforting feeling that I am doing something when I "Add Coding".
I can search documents for themes, and modify my node structures very
easily.
I don't like NUD*IST 4 Because:
I code too much.
I lose track of the significance of my searches and I have too many nodes.
Sigh - I see it is operating trouble rather than the software: it's not the
software but the person using it.
Charles Kirke.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Lewins [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 June 1999 12:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: General reviews of qual. soft?
>Alexandre Enkerli wrote:
>
>> A great thing about this list is to have so many expert developers around
>> to answer questions about specific qualitative software packages.
However,
>> when it comes to comparing programs, this could become something of a
>> hindrance as some members may be reluctant to criticize a program "in
>> front" of its developers.
>> Note that this is not a criticism of the list or of any of its members.
>> Just a "logical" constatation.
>>
>> In view of this, are there general reviews of qual. software available
>> online and/or in a peer-reviewed journal?
>
>There is a good book you might find useful:
>
>Weitzman, Eben. A.; Miles, Matthew B. (1998): Computer Programs for
>Qualitative Data Analysis. A Software Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks. 2nd
edition.
>
>The evaluation criteria are very good, but unfortunately a few programs,
e.g.
>The Ethnograph, are mising. As far as I know, Eben Weitzman is compiling a
new
>one with Raymond Lee and Nigel Fielding.
>
>Or check http://www.intext.de/TEXTANAE.HTM
well I 'd add something to that - I'd agree with Alexandre that we are all a
little nervous of upsetting the developers - but I think its also worth
pointing out that the developers themselves are reacting all the time to
constructive criticism - by actually changing the way their software works -
or bringing out new stuff which tries to incorporate 'wish list' changes
which we see talked about, either on this list or on the software specific
user group lists -
That is one of the real benefits of a list like this and we should feel free
to point out the bits that fall short of our requirements as well as the
bits that we like.
The trouble with the probably rather unfortunate end to this story is that
they all end up just the same - because when we criticise one software -
what we may be saying is 'we want you to be a little bit more like that
software over there!'
I will try, in the next two days to compile an opinionated list of 2 best
things I like from a selection of softwares, and 2 things I don't like (i
put a limit on it because of time!)
cheers
Ann Lewins
Resource Officer, CAQDAS Networking Project
Dept of Sociology
University of Surrey
GUILDFORD GU2 5XH
email: [log in to unmask]
CAQDAS web site: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/caqdas/
Tel +44 (0)1 483 259 455
Fax +44 (0)1 483 259 551
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|