 |
 |
At 01:51 08/07/00 +1000, you wrote: >OK - we get the point, but could you please get the reference right........ > >The Web has never heard of www.mailbase.ac.uk/qual-software - well at least >not at this point in time. > http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/qual-software/ is the link >Peter French >Melbourne, Australia > >----- Original Message ----- >From: alewins <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 1:20 AM >Subject: Re: Support for NOT using Qual software > > >> I want to stop another endless run of individual requests for the same >> information - ...so please no more requests - but if you have a >contribution >> to make- or references to post - then we will ALL be interested; >> ..do follow up Duncans suggestion to dig around in the CAQDAS bibliography >> at >> www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/caqdas/biblio.htm >> >> or follow up Sarahs very good suggestion to dig around in archives - >> www.mailbase.ac.uk/qual-software >> >> Personally I'd like to point out a much quoted essay by Michael Agar, >'The >> Right Brain Strikes Back' in >> Fielding, N. and Lee R, eds., (1991, 2/e 1993) 'Using computers in >> qualitative research' , Sage (see bibliography at above) >> >> ......over-simplifying just some of his points from memory, he suggested >> that software available was not (at the time)suited to *tracking and >> identifying small processes and narratives - or for instance helping to >> discover what drove the narrative to emerge in the way it did. One could >> only discover these things by reading and re-reading, or at a different >> level of thinking, brainstorming around a room whose work surfaces, >> perpendicular and horizontal ,were covered with bits of information. >> ( Comment: *I still don't think s/w does much for you in this respect, at >> least not for small amounts of data which require this type of 'immersion' >> analysis - though one or two softwares make a better attempt at it). >> >> >From previous discussions, the defence of software often revolves around >the >> 'tools' argument - and the nature of data itself - >> technology tools already changes data when they become reproduced in paper >> form - they are not the same as they were when we experienced a situation >or >> discussion - and didn't technology anyway influence the way respondents >> produced the information? >> So where does the use of tools stop? It should stop if the tool itself is >> the problem. Maybe the tool is just plain redundant if what we need is >> complete immersion in a small dataset. Maybe we don't have a realistic >> timespan allocated to learn it - maybe having to learn a software is a >> distraction from more important stuff, like producing the dissertation in >3 >> weeks and thinking about the data rather than the software! The software >> might become a tool like a pencil held the wrong way up - or worse, a >> calculator producing totals which bear no relation to the calculation we >> are attempting, because we don't know which buttons to press. Key issues >> here are familiarity with the tools - adequate time resources to enable >> that. >> >> The wrong thinking arrives for me with this popular assumption by nameless >> bodies who 'fund' - or talk vaguely about validity and science, that >> software should be used because it will somehow improve scientific value >of >> the work. Or because some helpful person said vaguely - 'oh its easier >with >> a software package - why don't you use ......?'. It may be all those >things, >> in some circumstances. Not in all. >> >> We have some cultural influences which make us use the computer to do >things >> which we managed with very nicely, thank you very much, before. >> But even typing got easier with the computer, so there are indeed some >other >> things which are made easier with the computer - so we should take a >> balanced and individual view based on our individual needs. >> The usefulness of software or the 'which software? question' depends >> entirely on a number of factors; the size and type of your dataset - your >> analytic approach - descriptive and interpretive, discourse analysis, >> content analysis - or a mixture of all of those. >> For the more descriptive interpretive approaches I'd say and the >developers >> of the software would say too, that MANAGEMENT of your data is going to >be >> a key factor WHETHER YOU USE A SOFTWARE PACKAGE OR NOT . BUT whether you >> use coloured markers or the walls of your dining room or a piece of >> software - it is YOU that does the thinking. >> For large datasets - and we see them increasingly in e.g. the health >field, >> of 40 or more - (sometimes 200!) interviews - I consider that there is a >> need for the added value from software's data 'management' tools. These >are >> best supplied by software packages specifically developed for qualitative >> data analysis - for a number of different analytic approaches. >> >> Software helps to give you quick ACCESS to the data and later to those >parts >> of the data that seemed interesting or valuable earlier in the exploration >> process. The software will allow you more flexibility to change your mind, >> more room for manoeuvre. It might make you more prepared to go right back >to >> the beginning and work from a different angle of approach. The s/w may >> allow you to ask questions to test relationships between things and >themes. >> But these questions come from you - not the software. You have to have the >> ideas before you can play with them.. >> >> There is plenty of room too - for more discussion about the relationship >of >> the researcher to the data inside a software package and how we move >around >> them; - do we flit around data like a bee gathering pollen - or are we >> encouraged to be as fully immersed in the small processes and interactions >> as we need to be? Does the data actually demand full immersion... some >data >> and some projects don't.... does the software help that process- or is it >> actually a barrier? Do we have better contact with the data a page at a >> time in paper form - than we do on screen? Are we so busy playing with >s/w >> toys we lose the data? Do we have too much data even using a s/w package? >> .........so, back to things like dataset size, the aims and objectives of >> the project vary ........ we should not make generalities or have them >> forced upon us, we should assess our own needs according to the way we >like >> to work, the size of the dataset - and what we need to pull out of the >data. >> >> I'd say though it is too easy to remain negative about software just >because >> of unfamiliarity with it. Resistance to the use of a qual-software >package >> can be justified and sustained by many quotes and writings - but a >balanced >> view needs to be taken - and thats easy to say !!! >> Oh and while you are storing up the negatives - there are some purely >> physical issues too... what about RSI? - >> ......what about our eyesight? If you don't absolutely have to be sitting >> in front of computer, don't. >> >> OK, some very mixed messages there - do argue! >> >> regards >> >> Ann Lewins >> CAQDAS Networking Project >> (and list-owner qual-software) >> >> also at [log in to unmask] >> http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk >> >> >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Miller Faculty Office Faculty of Social Sciences University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8RT 0141 339 8855 extn 0223 http://www.gla.ac.uk/faculties/socialsciences/ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%