>Wouldn't call that "autocoding", though...
I've been arguing for the replacement of the term "auto-coding" with the
term "auto-sorting." While we can all agree with the insights of Lyn,
Birrell, and John, there still is something misleading about the term
auto-coding. We frequently meet people who are left with the impression
that qualitative data analysis packages offer artificial intelligence - that
they interpret - that the software is a living breathing thing of its own.
When we record our demographics, or organize placeholders for responses to
structured questions - we're sorting key information - not interpreting, but
setting up for a different direction at interpretation.
And...text searching...is text searching...a powerful tool indeed, but as
has already been established, by no means perfect. The power of
"auto-sorting" and text searching for me is the ability to approach the data
from different directions -- to introduce challenges to our growing
understandings of our data. Birrell mentions that there are always
surprises with text searches, I agree.
There are also surprises in the text reading mentioned by Doug. The ability
to read data top-to-bottom document-by-document and then read across
documents as you review responses to key questions AND to cut unpredictably
into the data wherever we find a key work or phrase provides more
opportunity for discovery.
No one technique should stand alone and a good methodologist employs
features carefully and reports her or his approach to discovery. And all of
these processes are greatly enhanced by software.
Ray
Raymond C. Maietta, Ph.D., Director
ResearchTalk Consultation and Training
NY: 516 289.4175
www.researchtalk.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|