In an earlier post on CAQDAS critics and advocates I promised to provide evidence for my position that CAQDAS packages are not distancing, de-contextualising, and homogenising, as is sometimes claimed. I have already argued that CAQDAS packages actually bring us closer to our data, and given an illustration of how this can happen, so here I consider the de-contextualizing issue.
In my previous post I argued that using dedicated CAQDAS packages for analysis could bring us closer to our data, rather than distance us from it, as some critics suggest. Here I illustrate this by outlining how different CAQDAS tools can be used in to fulfil a specific analytic task, thus bringing us closer to data.
Let's imagine we are doing a project in which we need to generate an interpretation that is data-driven rather than theory-driven. It could involve one of a number of analytic methods, for example, inductive thematic analysis, narrative analysis, grounded theory analysis, interpretive phenomenological analysis'. Whatever the strategy, an early analytic task may be to familiarize with the transcripts in order identify potential concepts. There are several different ways we could go about fulfilling this analytic task using dedicated CAQDAS packages. Here I discuss three.
In an earlier post on CAQDAS critics and advocates I promised to provide evidence for my position that CAQDAS packages are not distancing, de-contextualising, and homogenising, as is sometimes claimed. So I'm starting a series of posts. First I'm taking the suggestion that the use of CAQDAS distances us from our qualitative data and illustrate why I believe the converse to be true. Here I outline my position, and I'll illustrate my argument with examples in subsequent posts.
Last week I gave the keynote at the 1st International Symposium on Qualitative Research and the 5th Ibero-American Congress on Qualitative Research, in Porto, Portugal. It was a good crowd of 350-400 delegates. A few people have asked me what I spoke about so here's a brief summary.
I was searching through tweets using the #CAQDAS hashtag the other day and came across one that sent me reeling. And not in a good way. I've since been pondering why it prompted such a strong reaction, which might not have happened had I not been to the recent ICQI conference.
The language of determinism and constructivism in CAQDAS discourses.
At the opening plenary of the Digital Tools stream at ICQI, Kristi Jackson highlighted that critics of CAQDAS often frame their positions in the language of determinism, whereas advocates use the language of constructivism. She noted that to determinist critics
"the software limits personal agency by standardizing processes", whereas to constructivist advocates "the software expands options and promotes diversity". Spot on.
Digital tools for qualitative data analysis are powerful and sexy, but does everyone know? And what can we / should we do about it...here are some musings from some recent conference experiences.
Who would travel half way across a continent to a conference with less than 30 participants? Christina and I were recently at the ICQI 2016 conference in Champaign at the University of Illinois. Norm Denzin, the founder and organizer of ICQI, told me 1,305 qualitative researchers attended this year...
I highly recommend Nick Woolf's workshops. I learned more in two days than in months of tinkering on my own. Nick does a masterful job of blending didactic instruction with one-on-one coaching.Kimberly Jinnett, Ph.D.
Senior Evaluation Officer, Wallace-Readers Digest Funds, The University of British Columbia