I've been following this thread with great interest... I did my
dissertation (in Instructional Technology) on this very topic. I located
individuals who had made the transition from "manual" methods to using
QDA software, and asked them to reflect on the transition --
particularly with regard to how their work methods changed, but also in
more contextual aspects, such as perceptions of colleagues. It was a
wonderful learning experience for me, and I remain deeply grateful to my
participants for sharing their reflections. (If you want to see a quick
summary of my study, I presented at AERA in 2000, and the paper is on
file with ERIC. "From print to pixels: Practioners' reflections on the
use of qualitative data analysis software.")
Interestingly, I had a hard time finding these "transition people" for
my study. No trouble finding QDA users, mind you -- but many of them
were people who were learning qualitative research and chose to use some
form of computer assistance from the outset. I wanted people who had
done at least one prior qualitative study, and they were much harder to
find. I ended up doing a good bit of travelling to make the contacts I
needed.
I think this difficulty is telling in itself, and has a number of
implications. One is that supervisors who do not use QDA need to be sure
that their students who do have the resources and training they need to
use the tools well. However, with that said, I think those supervisors
will help their students *most* by focusing on discussions of "what
does good work looks like?". Tools can't help you if you lack that
vision. (Don't we all know at least one hobbyist who is a "collector of
tools" but never makes anything? And part of the "toothpaste lid"
controversy stems from conflicting visions of a neat tube of toothpaste.
;) )
Cheers!
Linda
|