As the person who originally coined the term CAQDAS (one sunny
afternoon in Nigel Fielding's office), I deliberately included the
words 'computer-assisted' to emphasise that software needs always to be
used within a framework of methodological awareness and reflection. (A
point that has been re-emphasised over and over again by developers and
informed commentators ever since.) Of course, I have no control over
how other people use the term, but I've never restricted it to
code-and-retrieve software.
I took Suzanne to be responding not to the acronym itself but to the
adjective 'so-called'. 'So-called' has two contradictory meanings in
English. One is to indicate that a phrase used is a term of art. The
other and more common usage is to refer to something in a sarcastic
manner. If Thomas deliberately used the term with the latter intention,
then those who have striven over the years for a sophisticated
understanding of the possibilities and limitations of software packages
used to facilitate qualitative data analysis have some grounds for
feeling offended.
On 13 Sep 2004, at 4:13 pm, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Susanne,
At 09:26 13/09/2004, you wrote:
> [Thomas' (my) announcement:]
> > "so-called qualitative computer software (CAQDAS)" in research;
>
> I just wanted to point out that the acronym CAQDAS does not stand for
> "so-called qualitative computer software". Phrases like that or even
> worth
> qualitative data analysis software contribute further to the
> misunderstandings relatedd to CAQDAS.
Ooops, sorry that was indeed a very clumsy term, after all, all
software is
implicitly designed for computers. Thank you for pointing me to this.
However, I changed it in the HTML version now to the term you loathe so
much, namely into, "so-called qualitative data analysis software", and
here
is why:
http://tinyurl.com/4bzxj
(original URL:
http://googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=computer-assisted-
qualitative-data-analysis-software&q2=qualitative-data-analysis-
software+-computer-assisted-qualitative-data-analysis-
software&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)
Atlas.ti, NVivo and Co. are in fact called "qualitative data analysis
software," even if this might be a misleading term when taken
literally. It
is, however, misleading, not because of its missing
"computer-assisted," as
you seem to imply. I think "computer-assisted" is implicit in the term
"qualitative data analysis software" (who would write "computer-assisted
statistical software packages"?). Instead, it is IMO misleading, because
"qualitative data," i.e. unstructured data, can be analyzed with the
help
of all sorts of programs, including so-called quantitative packages like
Textpack or Diction. However, (computer-assisted) qualitative data
analysis
software, better known as CAQDAS, sometimes also QDAS, has become a term
that denotes only "code-and-retrieve software for various types of data,
which increasingly allows for the visualization of relationships between
data bits, codes, and/or theoretical concepts" (CRSFVTDIAVRDBCTC, aka
3rd
generation CAQDAS). Obviously, the acronym "CAQDAS" is far easier to
pronounce and more and more people know, which software is subsumed
under
the heading "CAQDAS." Those, who are not familiar with the term "CAQDAS"
will most likely know the term "qualitative data analysis software", as
googlefight shows. Therefore I will stick with it, even though I prefer
to
use the acronym.
> CADAS stands for COMPUTER-AIDED QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWRAE
> !!!!!! It
> helps and supports us, but it does NOT analyse the data (as all know
> who
> apply software in their work). The often wrong description prevents
> people
> from using software to support the analysis of their qualitative data.
Frankly, I doubt that a careless naming of the programs in question
really
has such far-reaching consequences, as to "prevent people from using"
it.
> The
> first package was launched almost 20 years ago and why do we still
> need to
> write (to quote Thomas)
>
> "Social scientists increasingly need to know about these programs and
> be
> able to operate them....." Why social scientists still don't know about
> these packages even though they are around for almost 20 years?
I dunno, but fact is: CAQDAS are less well-known than they could/should
be.
There are a number of reasons, why that might be the case. Off the top
of
my head, I can think of:
(1) Institutional inertia: Many longer established academics and some of
their research students are simply unfamiliar with CAQDAS. Even, if they
know such software exists, chances are they do not know, what the
software
can and cannot do. And even, if they know about the software, it might
still be the case that it may be irrelevant for the methodology they
use.
(2) Userfriendliness of the software: Up until a few years ago,
DOS-based
programs where quite common. Now, any program, which is not immediately
intelligble to its user will have problems with respect to its spread.
Take
structural equation models (SEM): Command-based LISREL existed for over
20
years, without too many sociologists doing SEM. Along came AMOS in 1997
with a visual interface, and voila, publications drawing on SEM
mushroomed
since then. BTW, LISREL followed unsurprisingly suit.
(3) The costs might in some cases be turn out prohibitive. Academics are
not used to pay for software, so that might be another obstacle to the
spread of CAQDAS.
There are number of other reasons, which would spring to my mind,
before I
would think of "poor labeling."
Thomas
--
thomas koenig
department of social sciences, loughborough university
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/index.html
|