The lack of transparency in the process of qualitative data analysis has led to the suspicion that findings may not be robust enough to be used as evidence. Much qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) contains functions that facilitate the demonstration of reliability and validity, although the process is not straightforward. Given the scale and complexity of many evaluations, QDAS is a powerful tool that can be used to manage and analyse vast amounts of qualitative data. Its use in an evaluative context, however, can be fundamentally different from using it for other forms of qualitative analysis. This article explores the use of NUD*IST version 6 (N6), a widely used QDAS, to manage data from the qualitative aspects of a large-scale multi-component evaluation involving a large, multi-site team. It demonstrates that research and logistical imperatives can have concrete impact on the way technology is harnessed to produce qualitative findings, hence inevitably influencing resultant evidence.
Barry, C. (1998) ‘Choosing Qualitative Data Analysis Software: Atlas/ti and Nudist Compared’ , Sociological Research Online3(3). Available at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/3/4.html (accessed 22 April 2003).
2.
Bazeley, P. (2002a) ‘The Evolution of a Project Involving an Integrated Analysis of Structured Qualitative and Quantitative Data: From N3 to NVivo’ , International Journal of Social Research Methodology5(3): 229–243 .
3.
Bazeley, P. (2002b) ‘Computerized Data Analysis for Mixed Methods Research’, in A. Tashakorri and C. Teddlie (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods for the Social and Behavioural Sciences, pp. 385–422. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
4.
Bourdon, S. (2001) ‘From Measuring Rigour to Fostering it: Automating Intercoder Reliability Verifi cation’ , QSR Newsletter16. Available via http://www.qsrinternational.com/resources/newsletters.asp (accessed 6 February 2003).
5.
Cannon, J. (1998) ‘Making Sense of the Interview Material: Thematizing, NUD*ist, and 10 meg of Transcripts’ , paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, November–December, Adelaide, Australia.
6.
Carvajal, D. (2002) ‘The Artisan's Tools: Critical Issues when Teaching and Learning CAQDAS’ , Forum: Qualitative Social Research3(2). Available via http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm (accessed 10 February 2003).
7.
Coffey, A. , B. Holbrook and P. Atkinson (1996) ‘Qualitative Data Analysis: Technologies and Representations’ , Sociological Research Online1(1). Available via http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/1/4.html (accessed 21 September 2002).
8.
Crow, G. , L. Levine and N. Nager (1992) ‘Are Three Heads Better than One? Reflection on Doing Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research’ , American Educational Research Journal29: 737–753 .
9.
di Gregorio, S. (2001) ‘Teamwork Using QSR N5 Software’ , QSR Newsletter16. Available via http://www.qsrinternational.com/resources/newsletters.asp (accessed 20 February 2003).
10.
Ford, K. , I. Oberski and S. Higgins (2000) ‘Computer-Aided Qualitative Analysis of Interview Data: Some Recommendations for Collaborative Working’ , The Qualitative Report4(3/4). Available via http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4–3/oberski.html (accessed 5 February 2003).
11.
Gibbs, G. R. , S. Friese and W. C. Mangabeira (2002) ‘The Use of New Technology in Qualitative Research: Introduction to Issue 3(2) of FQS’ , Forum: Qualitative Social Research3(2). Available via http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm (accessed 10 February 2003).
12.
Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strauss (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine .
13.
Hesse-Biber, S. (1995) ‘Unleashing Frankenstein's Monster? The Use of Computers in Qualitative Research’, in R. G. Burgess (ed.) Studies in Qualitative Methodology: Computing and Qualitative Research, vol. 5, pp. 25–41. London: JAI Press .
14.
Kelle, U. (1997) ‘Theory Building in Qualitative Research and Computer Programmes for the Management of Textual Data’ , Sociological Research Online2(2). Available via http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/1.html (accessed 5 February 2003).
15.
Lee, R. M. and N. Fielding (1995) ‘Users' Experiences of Qualitative Data Analysis Software’, in U. Kelle (ed.) Computer-aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice, pp. 29–40. London: SAGE .
16.
MacMillan, K. and T. Koenig (2004) ‘The Wow Factor: Preconceptions and Expectations for Data Analysis Software in Qualitative Research’ , Social Science Computer Review22(2): 179–186 .
17.
Mangabeira, W. C. (1996) ‘CAQDAS and its Diffusion across Four Countries: National Specifi cities and Common Themes’ , Current Sociology44(3): 191–205 .
18.
Meyer, T. , H. Gruppe and M. Franz (2002) ‘Microsoft Access for the Analysis of Open-Ended Responses in Questionnaires and Interviews’ , Forum: Qualitative Social Research3(2). Available at http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm (accessed 10 February 2003).
19.
Nideröst, B. (2002) ‘Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis with Word’ , Forum: Qualitative Social Research3(2). Available via http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm (accessed 10 February 2003).
20.
Richards, L. (2004) ‘Validity and Reliability? Yes! Doing it in Software’ , paper presented at Strategies in Qualitative Research, van Mildert College, Durham University, 1–3 September.
21.
Richards, L. (2005) Handling Qualitative Data. London: SAGE .
22.
Richards, T. (2002) ‘An Intellectual History of NUD*ist and NVivo’ , International Journal of Social Research Methodology5(3): 199–214 .
23.
Sin, C. H. (2003a) ‘Using NUD.ist N6 in a Large-Scale National Evaluation Project: A Multi-Site Team Experience’ , paper presented to the Strategies in Qualitative Research conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 8–9 May.
24.
Sin, C. H. (2003b) ‘The Social Organization of Using N6 in a Large Scale, Multi-Site Evaluation’ , QSR Newsletter22: 6-6 .
25.
Sin, C. H. (2004) ‘Using NUD*ist Version 6 for Evaluative Research’ , paper presented to Strategies in Qualitative Research conference, van Mildert College, University of Durham, 1–3 September.
26.
Spencer, L. , J. Ritchie , J. Lewis , L. Dillon and National Centre for Social Research (2003) Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. A Quality Framework. London: Cabinet Office .
27.
Tagg, C. (2002) ‘Merging and its Procedures in QSR Software’ , International Journal of Social Research Methodology5(3): 277–287 .
28.
Weitzman, E. A. and M. B. Miles (1995) Computer Programmes for Qualitative Data Analysis: A Software Sourcebook. London: SAGE .
