 |
 |
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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%