I agree with Clare on the whole. I woudl hope that those that can afford it
and those that have the time do indeed get the value added help they need
from people like Clare on longer courses. But I also think that its not
necessarily up to the software trainer to tell an individual WHAT
qualitative methodology to use, and its not up to us to presume that they
need that help - many people are VERY informed about their own approach -
they are very experienced qualitative researchers who have used more
traditional techniques for many years. But I echo some of the things
already said - Doug Ezzy said ...
"However, I'm not convinced that there isn't still a large number of people
that think they can use QDA software without having to learn the theory
behind qualitative methodology. This, of course, leads to the naive
inductivism that Lindberg describes"
SOME people do come along to a CAQDAS course - in the hopes that they will
find, via the software, a 'methodology' - I do see this on courses - but
only occasionally - (or I only occasionally have time to notice it!) and
this is of course, is not the right way round. But it is not an ideal world.
The software trainer cannot repair all the lacks of the world in 1 day or a
two day or even a three day workshop. Neither should we generalise.
But in house -'institutional' support for qualitative methodologies lags way
behind support for statistical paradigms - and presumably this will change
gradually as Odd implies.
I think the more its debated the better - because the thing I often hear
from students particularly at Masters level - is that they wish there was
more structured time given to qualitative paradigms in their taught courses
or at least more 'choice' to follow that route rather than the other .
One reason its resisted is that there are still a lot more employers asking
for statistical literacy - than qualitative and there isn't time for both to
be 'done' thoroughly in a curriculum. - so its a circular thing which may
gradually change. Even where there is choice at an institution - there may
be a huge gap - both in theoretical and practical ways - because there isn't
yet sufficient in-house support to fulfil their choice - and stop-gap help
is sought at a practical level from people like us.
Ann Lewins
-----Original Message-----
From: Clare Tagg <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 06 May 1999 14:28
Subject: Re(2): Odd paper and Training courses
>In discussing the question of training in CAQDAS, Odd makes the following
>very valid point:
>>
>>And I also think that you put forward some important questions about the
>>software training courses. My experience/hypothesis is ( without having
>>the
>>overall picture ofcourse, this is an empirical question) that these
>>courses
>>are mostly focused on the techniques and the different possibilities that
>>the software can offer the researcher. As I understand there are different
>>levels on the courses but these levels are also mostly related to
>>skills/techniques.
>
>Although externally courses appear to have a software focus, I suspect
>that many experienced trainers in CAQDAS find that actually they do spend
>a large amount of time discussing methodological issues. In all the
>NUD*IST courses I have taught we have discussed a whole range of
>methodological issues including validity, interaction of software with
>method, and role of theory. It is for this reason that I am loath to
>teach NUD*IST without using the participant's own data and that before a
>course I ask for details of the research question and data.
>
>However if you look at the descriptions of my courses they seem to have a
>technique focus and when people ring me up they ask for training in
>NUD*IST not for qualitative research with NUD*IST. I suspect the reason
>for this dichotomy is that is easy to see that you need to know which
>buttons to press to make the software fly but less easy to see or describe
>what you might need in terms of qualitative research using software. And
>because it is easier to describe, maybe it is easier to get funding for a
>NUD*IST course. This is actually no different to other forms of software
>- it is quite normal to teach a course on say accounting software and find
>you need to actually teach people about accounting.
>
>One of the consequences is time - if a course is actually teaching rather
>more than just how to use the software then you need longer to teach
>people (just a little plea from a trainer who constantly tries to persuade
>people to book longer courses, not because it costs more but because I
>know I can do a better job).
>
>Clare
>-- ------------------------------------------------------
>Clare Tagg Tagg Oram Partnership [log in to unmask]
>Tel: +44 1462 896600 Fax: +44 1462 895777 http://www.taggoram.co.uk
>
>Suppliers of the distance learning course for QSR NUD*IST and NVivo
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|