Sylvana's commentary is very useful and timely because it again reminds us
of the importance of ensuring that we, as qualitative resarchers, are
aquainted with the theoretical underpinnings of methodology _ irrespective
of the software tools that we engage.
I'm bound to say, however, that even though I missed out on the 'carbon
paper copies being pasted into many notebooks' era, I did use Lampton
Paragon (?) cards in the early to mid seventies. This involved us either
punching specific holes out (with an implement rather akin to a bus
conductor's punch), or leaving that same hole complete. This enable us to
sort the cards, by categories, with knitting needles! For instance, if
North and South were categories, and North had the corresponding hole for
North cut out and South had the hole left in, then, after a knitting needle
had been inserted at that hole, a vigorous shaking would see all of the
North (hole-punched-out) cards dropping from the bundle whilst leaving the
(non-hole-punched) South cards impaled at the appropriate hole by the
knitting needle. (It was, btw, important to hold each end of the needle.)
A decade of so later, when early data bases were devised for use on 20
Megabyte personal computers, interviews transcripts were numbered and text
units within each interview was sequentially numbered so that the fruits of
interpretation could be slotted into appropriate categorical columns.
These columns didn't actually allow us to look at the data but at least
told us which documents and which text units within those documents, to
look at if we were seeking to examine a particular phenomenon. And of
course, splitting the data (eg, by gender) was possible if we used search
processes iteratively.
Now I'm not writing this to demonstrate that I'm beginning to reach the age
where I am able to be described as 'an old codger'. Rather, I'm writing
this because it seems to me that the points that Sylvana makes with respect
to grounded theory (or better still, grounded methodology), and the points
that he makes with respect to the development of taxonomies, and with
respect to writing up processes, are pretty well constant no matter what
the tools and techniques are that we engage.
So I guess that the point I want to make, again, is that we need to be sure
that we have a handle on precisely what it is that we are investigating and
at the same time, we need to recognise that our chosen methodology (what
ever that may involve) is imbedded within, or at least derives from, the
interpretative tradition. Furthermore, the methods that we use when we
engage computer software are not coterminous to a methodology.
I would argue, therefore, that we do not really have a NUD*IST methodology
and neither do we have an Atlas methodology or a Decision Explorer
methodology or even an NVivo methodology. But we do use these programmes
as tools, and the METHODS or TECHNIQUES that these tools enable, generally
strengthen our capacity to interpret data that have been gathered, managed
and subsequently analysed.
Importantly, we do this in accordance with our thinking about a particular
theoretical framework. Of equal importance is the reality that a
framework of theory inevitably has a scaffold of associated methodological
thinking attached to it. Methodological thinking is most typically
manifested as one or more supportive arguments for undertaking research in
a particular manner. Methodological assertions, moreover, lend themselves
to a coterie of sympathetic reserach methods and for many of us, the
coterie includes one or more of our preferred research software packages.
Lyn Richards claimed at the recent AQR conference that a debate that ought
to be happenning concerns the matter of whether or not computer programmes
are spawning a methodology or are, if I understood her clearly, tantamount
to a methodlogy. To my mind, this is by no means straight forward issue
and the case that I'd make is that computer programmes do not yet a
methodology make.
So thanks Sylvana for stirring up the thinking cells. I wonder what others
think.....
cheers,
Jens
___________________________________
Jens J. Hansen, Ph.D.(New England)
Programme Leader, Master of Educational Management,
UNITEC Institute of Technology, Te Kura Puukenga o Wairaka,
Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
UNITEC Phone: 64 9 815 4321 Ext. 8797 UNITEC Fax: 64 9 815 4310
UNITEC email: [log in to unmask]
91 Domain Cresent, Muriwai Beach, RD 1 Waimauku, West Auckland, New Zealand
Home Phone: 64 9 411 7703
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|