Discussions on computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software often begin with the assumption that research will automatically be improved through the use of such software. Consequently, reviews frequently focus on practical concerns with the various software packages. Rather than theoretical considerations of its suitability to the method of analysis, such descriptions frequently treat software as the method of analysis. The following article calls for a clearer understanding of the role of software within research, with critical evaluation focusing on the methodological issues surrounding software use, as well on its technological innovations. The authors examine a number of factors that foster a tendency toward uncritical appraisal—including unrealistic expectations of the software as a methodology in itself; the treatment of qualitative analysis as a single, homogenized category; and the use of grounded theory as a legitimating link between tool and method.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexa, A., & Zuell, C. (1999). A review of software for text analysis. Mannheim, Germany: ZUMA.
2.
Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Electronic Journal of Business Research Method, 2(1), 1-10.
3.
Bannister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1994). Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
4.
Barry, C. A. (1998). Choosing qualitative data analysis software: Atlas/ti and Nud*ist compared. Sociological Research Online, 3(3). Retrieved from www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/3/4.html
5.
Bazeley, P. (2002). The evolution of a project involving an integrated analysis of structured qualitative and quantitative data: From N3 to Nvivo. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(3), 229-243.
6.
Bazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2000). The NVivo qualitative project book. London: Sage.
Bourdon, S. (2002). The integration of qualitative data analysis software in research strategies: Resistances and possibilities. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 3(2). Retrieved from www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02bourdon-e.htm
9.
Buston, K. (1997). NUD*ist in action: Its use and its usefulness in a study of chronic illness in young people. Social Research Online, 2(3). Retrieved from www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/6.html
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data analysis: Complementary strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Coffey, A., Holbrook, B., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and representations. Sociological Research Online, 1(1). Retrieved from www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/1/4.html
13.
Crowley, C., Harré, R., & Tagg, C. (2002). Qualitative research and computing: Methodological issues and practices in using QSR NVivo and Nud*ist. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(3), 193–197.
14.
DeNardo, A. M., & Levers, L. L. (2002, June). Using NVivo to analyze qualitative data. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education Conference, Duquesne University. Retrieved from http://www.education.duq.edu/leaders/EQRE/papers2002/DeNardo&Levers.pdf
15.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994.). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide. London: Routledge.
17.
Fielding, N. (2000). The shared fate of two innovations in qualitative methodology: The relationship of qualitative software and secondary analysis of archived qualitative data. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 1(3). Retrieved from http://qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00fielding-e.htm
18.
Fielding, N., & Lee, R. M. (2000). Patterns and potentials in the adoption of qualitative software: The implications of user experiences and software training. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Social Science Methodology. Retrieved from http://qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00fielding-e.htm
19.
Fielding, N. G., & Lee, R. M. (Eds.). (1991). Using computers in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Gilbert, L. S. (2002). Going the distance: “Closeness” in qualitative data analysis software. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(3), 215-228.
21.
Glaser, B. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2). Retrieved from www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm.
22.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
23.
Habermas, J. (1963/1989). Analytische Wissenschaftstheorie und Dialektik: Ein Nachtrag zur Kontroversezwischen Popper und Adorno [Analytical science theory and dialectics: a supplement to the Popper and Adorno controversy]. In T. W. Adorno, R. Dahrendorf, J. Habermas, H. Pilot, & K. R. Popper (Eds.), Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (pp. 155-191). 1989. Darmstadt, Germany: Luchterhand Literaturverlag. (Original work published in 1963)
24.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography, principles in practice. London: Tavistock.
25.
Kelle, U. (1997). Theory building in qualitative research and computer programs for the management of textual data. Sociological Research Online 2(2). Retrieved from www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/1.html
26.
Lonkila, M. (1995). Grounded theory as an emerging paradigm for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
MacMillan, K., & McLachlan, S. (1999). Theory-building with Nud*ist: Using computer assisted qualitative analysis in a media case study. Sociological Research Online, 4(2). Retrieved from www.socresonline.org.uk/4/2/macmillan_mclachlan.html
Richards, T. (2002). An intellectual history of Nud*ist and NVivo. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(3), 199–214.
31.
Richards, L. (1995). Transition work! Reflections on a three-year Nud.ist project. In R. C. Burgess (Ed.), Studies in qualitative methodology (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
32.
Richards, T. J., & Richards, L. (1991). The transformation of qualitative method: Computational paradigms and research processes. In N. G. Fielding & R. M. Lee (Eds.), Using computers in qualitative research. London: Sage.
33.
Richards, T. J., & Richards, L. (1994). Using computers in qualitative research. In N. D. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
34.
Roberts, K. A., & Wilson, R. W. (2002). ICT and the research process: Issues around the compatibility of technology with qualitative data analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 3(2). Retrieved from www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02robertswilson-e.htm
35.
Seidel, J., Kjolseth, R., & Seymour, E. (1988). The ethnograph: A user’s guide. Littleton, CO: Qualis Research Associates.
36.
Smith, B. A., & Hesse-Biber, S. (1996). Users’ experiences with qualitative data analysis software: Neither Frankenstein’s monster nor muse. Social Science Computer Review, 14(4), 423-432.
37.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
Strübing, J. (2002). Just do it? Zum Konzept der Herstellung und Sicherung von Qualität in grounded theorybasierten Forschungsarbeiten [For the production and protection of quality in grounded theory-based research projects]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 54(2), 318-342.
40.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. London: Falmer.
Weaver, A., & Atkinson, P. (1995). From coding to hypertext. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Computing and qualitative research: Studies in qualitative methodology (5th ed., pp. 141-168). Greenwich CT: JAI.
43.
Weitzman, E. A., & Miles, M. B. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis: A software sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Wikander, K. (2000). Concordance and diction: Comparative review. Computers & Texts, (18/19), 35-37.
