 |
 |
Dear Kath, Karen and Kevin, Your views are very interesting and I am in agreement with this approach assuming that I am using Nvivo for some type of qualitative thematic analysis (which I have in the past). I am in fact using it as part of a quantative analysis of behaviour and cognitive coding with a set of codes already developed to examine questionnaire design. Having stated this, does anyone know if this is possible in any of the qualitative software packages if it is not possible in Nvivo. Thank you Chris At 07:02 AM 5/25/01 EDT, you wrote: > >Actually this is a VERY interesting question. I agree with the previous >sentiment about reliability being something we all need to aim for. What >should be acknowledged however is that (as Kath Checkland noted) there is >never going to be any 'right' answer, and subsequently never any entirely >valid solution ... at least not from parallel coding. As far as I'm >concerned, this even includes having a supervisor and acknowledged expert >parallel coding some sections. The problem one faces there, is are you >getting drawn into someone else's worldviews and perspectives. Admittedly you >may be working from a very similar epistemology, but they will never be >precisely the same ... and even similar or identical epistemologies do offer >a degree of flexibility dependent on your background, etc. Perhaps the only >real validity that can be achieved here is internal i.e. from that of the >individual coder, after all, that's half the point of qualitative research. >Its not necessarily expected that any two people will get the same codes, as >you are never operating from the same worldview. What is expected however, is >if YOU did it again under the same circumstance, that you would make the same >coding. My thoughts would be to be very conscious in documenting what you're >doing and why you are making the decisions you are at any given point in >time. Keep a running journal of your coding thoughts. > >Having said that though, its always interesting getting other perspectives. >I'm just not entirely convinced it makes it more reliable, certainly not in a >quantitative sense where you would need hundreds of perspectives. Perhaps it >does something for the validity though? That's another question. > >Ok, that's my 2 cents worth. Hope you found it interesting. >Kevin > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > >------------ >Please reply to [log in to unmask] > >Kevin Franklin >Corporate Citizenship Unit >Centre for Creativity Strategy and Change >Warwick Business School, >University of Warwick >Coventry, CV4 7AL >UK >http://users.wbs.warwick.ac.uk/ccu/ >Tel: 024 765 73130 >Home: 01225 318772 >Mobile: 07949 014593 > >********************************************************************** >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they >are addressed. Thank you!