 |
 |
Hello all, Udo Kuckartz wrote: > > Much better than Harald Klein's fairly bad characterizations is a software review > done by ZUMA (Mannheim): > Melina Alexa & Cornelia Zuell: Commonalities, differences and limitations of > text analysis Software: The results of a review ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 99/06 > You can download this review as pdf-file from ZUMA's website: > http://www.zuma-mannheim.de/publications/series/working-papers/99_06abs.htm I agree with you, Udo, but the bad characterisation was on purpose that it is NOT THAT EASY to decide which software to use. Seems that I caused a misunderstanding, but that was definitely not my goal. The problem of text analysis software in general is that the software has to be classified according, well that is a question one has to discuss. Weitzman/Miles established a scheme for QDA-software, but text analysis software is much more. I also made some attemps (see my list of publications at http://www.intext.de/PUBLICAE.HTM), but I am not satisfied yet. Another problem is that the market is growing and thus changing quite rapidly. And as already mentioned by Lyn Richards, printed surveys are out of date when they are printed. As long as there are no common criteria to classify and to evaluate text analysis software, I think this unsatisfactory status will not change. Classification is necessary because you cannot use the same evaluation criteria e.g. for content analysis software and QDA-software. Just my 2 cents Harald P.S.: I am currentyl developing evaluation criteria for content analysis software. If you are interested, have a look at http://www.intext.de/ccasoft1.htm and ... ccasoft2.htm (don't remember if the file names should be uppercase...) Comments are welcome. ---------- Dr. Harald Klein Social Science Consulting Königseer Str. 9 98708 Gehren Germany Tel/Fax: 036783 80284 www.intext.de %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%