 |
 |
> Dear Qualitative List, > If one wanted to assess the "richness" of narrative reports using a > qualitative data analysis program, which program would you recommend? To > provide some context, I am conducting a study where participants will be > randomly assigned to one of two conditions and asked to provide a narrative > report of an event that they have experienced. My research question concerns > whether there are differences in the "richness" of reports depending on the > condition to which the participants were assigned. Thank you in advance. > Jason - I agree with much that Harriet Meek said earlier in response to this. Her questions and comments about definition and criteria of richness being central to a helpful answer about software. It would also be helpful to know in what context you 'imagined' a software program could help you assess 'richness'. A couple of extra questions I'd want to ask - how big the dataset ? what is your disciplinary background? what is the epistemological background to your study? I only ask because I think its useful to be clear about what you don't need as well as what you might need. I was once involved very peripherally with someone who had a fairly small data set - 12 or so interviews based on interviewees' responses to vignettes concerning moral dilemmas. She began (this was 5 years ago) using a software to 'code' ideas, themes, issues observed in the data. Then midway thro her analysis and after extensive use of Nud.ist, after advice from supervisors, she started to rethink her approach. She realised that she actually wanted to start all over again - looking at the language and style of expression from a much more discourse analysis perspective. She stopped using any software package at all except for 'Word', and simply broke down each sentence or phrase with long, in depth written analysis of what 'work' was going on in each statement. There was always going to be limit to how much a software program like NUD*ISt could support that approach, but she wasn't clear enough about what her approach was, before she started. Some software programs are designed to help you 'manage 'and process large volumes of text - but the trade off is, that you lose touchy feely contact with how you can physically 'handle' and 'annotate' the text. NOW... 5 years later, there are software packages that might have helped her handle her data in more flexible ways. In any of the 'rich text format' softwares, MAXqda, NVivo (parallel stream package to Nudist) she could have had both the touchy feely ability to mark and colour her text and break it down phrase by phrase, with embedded written analysis (or more hidden annotations)...but also have used parallel, traditional coding/retrieval devices if she had wanted, to help her 'manage' other aspects of her data. Rather differently, ATLAS.ti, though not quite yet rich text format - provides efficient ways to set up linked passages (hyperlinks) of say, 'trails thro the data' the sequence of which you want to preserve (when re-examining them. This is the restriction with coding... this fragments the text and tends to retrieve the text fragments in 'text' order - not so helpful with narrative. .... hope that helps to contextualise some of the issues you may need to consider - I suppose what I am saying also is that - the management of your data is important - and this is what CAQDAS softwares tend to do well. But ask yourself what you were hoping it could do for you? All these packages are very dependent on you thought processes - nothing happens automatically. There are some packages (investigate Diction 4 for instance which analyses the tone, or confidence level - based on pattern recognition etc - used in management contexts) ...but I'd hesitate though before recommending it as a flexible data management tool. cheers Ann Lewins CAQDAS Networking Project: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/caqdas/ [log in to unmask] Dept of Sociology University of Surrey GUILDFORD GU2 5XH +44 (0)1 483 25 94 55 mobile +44 (0) 7966 541 518