Dear listmembers
At 14:02 11.6.2004, Stephen Gourlay wrote:
>So I'm still waiting for an example of why CAQDAS is 'not' suitable
>for discourse analysis!
This is an important question. Maybe someone can answer it.
I once asked a discourse analyst what about using CADQAS.
The answer was "never" and she told in her presentation of using
colour pens instead. She underlined on the paper the discouse 1 by using red,
discourse 2 by using blue etc. pen. I wonder if it's a question of categorizing
of data here (usual when using CADQAS). Or, what's this all about?
Referring to Thomas Stephen wrote also:
>You suggest fs/QCA as an interesting tool - no doubt. But the kinds
>of manipulation that are described on the fs/QCA site can be done
>with SPSS! I recall doing things like that (though a laborious
>recoding process) some years ago - effectively recoding fuzzy sets
>into various categories in SPSS so that I could analyse them with
>contingency tables. A quantitatively oriented collegue recently
>suggested correspondence analysis which I have not looked into.
>These of course are all down the 'quantitative' end of data analysis!
QCA and fs/QCA are programs used in Comparative Qualitative Analysis.
The both methods of analysis and thus also the programs are based on
the mathematical logic. Whether mathematical logic is - in its nature -
"quantitative",
is another interesting question.
QCA and fs/QCA at least don't make use of quantities
but instead of the logical connections between the factors used in the
analysis.
If someone wants to learn more about QCA and fs/QCA, good starting points
are Charles C. Ragin's page http://www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin/ragin.htm and the
Small-N/Compasss Homepage in Belgium http://www.compasss.org/ .
Terveisin
Pentti Luoma
|