Sylvana's commentary is very useful and timely because it again reminds us 
of the importance of ensuring that we, as qualitative resarchers, are 
aquainted with the theoretical underpinnings of methodology _ irrespective 
of the software tools that we engage.  

I'm bound to say, however, that even though I missed out on the 'carbon 
paper copies being pasted into many notebooks' era, I did use Lampton 
Paragon (?) cards in the early to mid seventies.  This involved us either 
punching specific holes out (with an implement rather akin to a bus 
conductor's punch), or leaving that same hole complete.  This enable us to 
sort the cards, by categories, with knitting needles!  For instance, if 
North and South were categories, and North had the corresponding hole for 
North cut out and South had the hole left in, then, after a knitting needle 
had been inserted at that hole, a vigorous shaking would see all of the 
North (hole-punched-out) cards dropping from the bundle whilst leaving the 
(non-hole-punched) South cards impaled at the appropriate hole by the 
knitting needle.  (It was, btw, important to hold each end of the needle.)

A decade of so later, when early data bases were devised for use on 20 
Megabyte personal computers, interviews transcripts were numbered and text 
units within each interview was sequentially numbered so that the fruits of 
interpretation could be slotted into appropriate categorical columns.  
These columns didn't actually allow us to look at the data but at least 
told us which documents and which text units within those documents, to 
look at if we were seeking to examine a particular phenomenon.  And of 
course, splitting the data (eg, by gender) was possible if we used search 
processes iteratively.

Now I'm not writing this to demonstrate that I'm beginning to reach the age 
where I am able to be described as 'an old codger'.  Rather, I'm writing 
this because it seems to me that the points that Sylvana makes with respect 
to grounded theory (or better still, grounded methodology), and the points 
that he makes with respect to the development of taxonomies, and with 
respect to writing up processes, are pretty well constant no matter what 
the tools and techniques are that we engage.

So I guess that the point I want to make, again, is that we need to be sure 
that we have a handle on precisely what it is that we are investigating and  
at the same time, we need to recognise that our chosen methodology (what 
ever that may involve) is imbedded within, or at least derives from, the 
interpretative tradition. Furthermore, the methods that we use when we 
engage computer software are not coterminous to a methodology. 

I would argue, therefore, that we do not really have a NUD*IST methodology 
and neither do we have an Atlas methodology or a Decision Explorer 
methodology or even an NVivo methodology.  But we do use these programmes 
as tools, and the METHODS or TECHNIQUES that these tools enable, generally 
strengthen our capacity to interpret data that have been gathered, managed 
and subsequently analysed.  

Importantly, we do this in accordance with our thinking about a particular 
theoretical framework.  Of equal importance is the reality that a  
framework of theory inevitably has a scaffold of associated methodological 
thinking attached to it.  Methodological thinking is most typically 
manifested as one or more supportive arguments for undertaking research in 
a particular manner.  Methodological assertions, moreover, lend themselves 
to a coterie of sympathetic reserach methods and for many of us, the 
coterie includes one or more of our preferred research software packages.

Lyn Richards claimed at the recent AQR conference that a debate that ought 
to be happenning concerns the matter of whether or not computer programmes 
are spawning a methodology or are, if I understood her clearly, tantamount 
to a methodlogy.   To my  mind, this is by no means straight forward issue 
and the case that I'd make is that computer programmes do not yet a 
methodology make.  

So thanks Sylvana for stirring up the thinking cells.  I wonder what others 
think..... 

cheers,

Jens


   
___________________________________
Jens J. Hansen, Ph.D.(New England)
Programme Leader, Master of Educational Management, 
UNITEC Institute of Technology, Te Kura Puukenga o Wairaka,
Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
UNITEC Phone:  64 9 815 4321 Ext. 8797  UNITEC Fax:  64 9 815 4310
UNITEC email: [log in to unmask]

91 Domain Cresent, Muriwai Beach, RD 1 Waimauku, West Auckland, New Zealand
Home Phone: 64 9 411 7703  


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%