>>Alexandre Enkerli wrote:
>>
>>> A great thing about this list is to have so many expert developers
around
>>> to answer questions about specific qualitative software packages.
>However,
>>> when it comes to comparing programs, this could become something of a
>>> hindrance as some members may be reluctant to criticize a program "in
>>> front" of its developers.
>>> Note that this is not a criticism of the list or of any of its members.
>>> Just a "logical" constatation.
>>>
>>> In view of this, are there general reviews of qual. software available
>>> online and/or in a peer-reviewed journal?
>>
>>There is a good book you might find useful:
>>
>>Weitzman, Eben. A.; Miles, Matthew B. (1998): Computer Programs for
>>Qualitative Data Analysis. A Software Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks. 2nd
>edition.
Below I append 2 'likes' and (up to) 2 'don't likes' for a selection of
software programs which can be loosely described as 'Theory building'
software (a phrase coined by Eben Weitzman and Matthew Miles in their 1995
Sage publication - as Harald said - a new edition of this is under-way):
whilst sending this - I am aware there are other software's I am
neglecting - (you will be grateful I am sure!) please if you are the
developer of a software that is not included - tell us about it!
I am also aware that by limiting myself to two things I am neglecting a
whole range of other things I like (or not) about each software.
CAUTION: Ones subjective comparative view is ALWAYS influenced by varying
degrees of familiarity - so this is another reason for severely limiting
comments - and indeed I am afraid some of the 'worst' things woudl probably
be fixed by much greater familiarity. The bicycle was dodgy to start with -
but i am fine with it now. Sometimes, however, its the very process of
getting familiar which is difficult - and that needs addressing sometimes.
There is a good argument by experienced users of software that - it doesn't
matter which software you are using - you can make it work for you - and you
can and shoudl make it work to assist you in the way which suits your
current approach to qualitative data analysis, and further - to spend too
long in angst about which one to use is a waste of valuable time; I don't
seek to cause confusion or suggest that it is otherwise - simply to follow
up Alexandres message which suggested that we can be a bit BLAND in our
comments.
There are a couple of other software packages (listed immediately below)
which I am trying to get around to familiarising with - or at least have
alook at - but time is a problem for me and I feel I should make mention of
them and find out if others have used them and if so, what did you think
about them? (as if life wasn't complicated enough!) they may be rather more
'content' oriented in their approach.
An earlier msg from Norman Peladeau
>If you are considering TextSmart, you might also want to consider Wordstat
The URL for this is:
http://www.simstat.com/wordstat.htm
Normand Peladeau <[log in to unmask]>
and Textsmart itself (an SPSS product)
http://www.spss.com/software/textsmart/
and a software package called AFTER - from Novaresearch - anyone tried it?
>http://www.novaresearch.com/Products/AFTER/AFTER.HTML
<[log in to unmask]>
in no particular order.....
QSR NUD*IST V4
I like it because of the ease with which I can stay in control while I am
browsing coded stuff - i.e. JUST the stuff coded by a general theme - and
then I can re-code - or 'code-on' more detail.
I like QSR's shortcutting IMPORT TABLE tool, which will organise data into
coded groups of documents according to e.g. socio demographic values
I don't like it because of the memory and scrolling restrictions when
handling editable reports, i.e. inside the software; (the browse window -
or the live contact with source or coded text is not a problem in same way)
I don't like the fact that I can never see how my file is coded as a whole -
only by seeing requested codes (up to 26) displayed in margin
ATLAS.ti 4.2
I like the interactivity and instant connections between code,
networks(maps), query tool and text.
I like the network tool because the above interactivity allows me to explode
an area of thinking around one theme, or part of one theme - and the
integration with the text, even displayed within the network, allows me to
stay grounded in data while I am at this level of abstraction.
I don't like the way 'filtering' to a family of codes or documents isolates
me from the rest of my codes or docs - I want to know what else I am NOT
working with.
I don't like the query tool. It coudl be easier to make sense of.
WINMAX 98
I like its economy of style; the way it is so easy and tidy to work with
on-screen - usually only one or at most two ways to do things (makes it so
easy to teach), the principle of activation is easy and flexibly applied.
The coding hierarchy works the way a hierarchy shoudl work - the parent code
is inclusive of everythign under it - unless you choose otherwise.
I don't like the lack of margin display when 'printing out' how a document
is coded - although the onscreen display is good.
Text searching inside coded segments (could be really useful) does not seem
to work as I would like it to.
The Ethnograph V5.0
I like its easiness; the way I can drop my text straight from the Word
Processor - into the editor window and format it to suit the software -
I like the memo tool: the way you can jump from a list of memos - to the
memo itself and where its located in the source text -
I don't like the way I still have to close down one screen before opening
another (bit like DOS V4.0)
I woudl like to be able to resize some windows - my code list - while I am
coding for instance - ratehr alot of scrolling up and down.
KWALITAN V4
I like its easiness -and the really easy way it combines the use of word
frequencies, word lists and coding techniques and can combine the searches
for either dimension.
Its still DOS. So its a bit dated in terms of what and how you do things.
But it will work well for those with limited computer specs.
QSR NVivo
I like the use of Rich text format, and the potential that has to 'organise'
my data and the ability to 'link' to other sources - but what Bruce Mason
already said here is crucial
"....I think the rtf presentation in N*Vivo is encouraging (though I
think the fact that allows you to treat data in an unfixed form is its
biggest contribution)"
The potential for testing ideas before total immersion in the data - is
good - i.e. the assay tool
I find it rather untidy - the windows don't arrange themselves neatly - but
I guess I will get used to making that work.
I would wish for a bit more slick connectivity between codes and text.
CODE-A-TEXT
I like the way words/word groups in the word archive - or codes that I have
created act as retrieval agents in exactly the same way.
I like the way if working with a sound file my commentary and annotations
(if created while scrolling thro the sound file) stays in 'sync' from then
on, with the sound file.
I find the coding schema structure (Scales and codes) rather restrictive
I find the ways IN to the software rather tricky and sometimes unpredictably
go wrong (coudl be finger trouble!)
OK - please correct me if I got it wrong - please argue if you disagree.
cheers
Ann
Ann Lewins
Resource Officer, CAQDAS Networking Project
Dept of Sociology
University of Surrey
GUILDFORD GU2 5XH
email: [log in to unmask]
CAQDAS web site: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/caqdas/
Tel +44 (0)1 483 259 455
Fax +44 (0)1 483 259 551
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
