Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-10
Qualitative data analysis software as a tool for teaching analytic practice: Towards a theoretical framework for integrating QDAS into methods pedagogy
Methods educators who include qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) in their teaching see the software as an opportunity to bring authentic experiences of analytic practice into classrooms. However, we currently lack a shared language for outlining and understanding what this analytic practice could or should entail. By expanding Silver and Woolf’s 5-Level QDAS® pedagogy, I introduce a theoretical framework of analytic practice with QDAS designed for methods educators to reflect on their curricula, and for academic leaders and administrators to reflect on their institutions’ overall educational ecologies regarding qualitative methods. Further, I illustrate how barriers to integrating QDAS reflect broader issues in qualitative methods education, specifically regarding analysis training and apprenticeship. Given these barriers, I suggest that discussions of the positive or negative impacts of QDAS should focus less on the users and the software itself, and instead more on the way we teach, or fail to teach the practice of qualitative analysis.
AgarM (1991) The right brain strikes back. In: FieldingNGLeeRM (eds) Using Computers in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE, 181–194.
2.
AllattPBensonLB (1991) Computing and qualitative analysis: issues in research methods teaching. In: FieldingNGLeeRM (eds) Using Computers in Qualitative Research. London, New Delhi, Newbury Park: SAGE, 75–88.
3.
AuerbachCFSilversteinLB (2003) Qualitative Data. An Introduction to Coding and Analysis. New York and London: New York University Press.
4.
BergMSeeberBK (2016) The Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
BlankG (2004) Teaching qualitative data analysis to graduate students. Social Science Computer Review22(2): 187–196.
7.
BourdieuP (1988) Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
BourqueCJBourdonS (2017) Multidisciplinary graduate training in social research methodology and computer-assisted qualitative data analysis: a hands-on/hands-off course design. Journal of Further and Higher Education41(4), 475–491.
9.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
10.
BrownJSCollinsADuguidP (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Administration Quarterly18(1): 32–42.
11.
CarterSMLittleM (2007) Taking action: epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research17(10): 1316–1328.
12.
CarvajalD (2002) The artisan’s tools: critical issues when teaching and learning CAQDAS. Forum Qualitative Social Research3(2): Art. 14.
13.
CassutoL (2015) The Graduate School Mess: What Caused It and How We Can Fix It. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
14.
CorbinJStraussA (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
CreswellJW (2013) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
CrottyM (1998) The Foundations of Social Research. London: SAGE.
17.
DavidsonJ (2004) Grading NVivo: making the shift from training to teaching with software for qualitative data analysis. In: Fifth international conference on strategies in qualitative research: using QSR NVivo and NUD*IST, Durham, UK, 2004.
18.
DavidsonJDi GregorioS (2011) Qualitative research and technology: in the midst of a revolution. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed.). London: SAGE, 627–643.
19.
DavidsonJJacobsC (2008) The implications of qualitative research software for doctoral work. Considering the individual and institutional context. Qualitative Research Journal8(2): 72–80.
20.
DeakinHWakefieldKGregoriusS (2012) An exploration of peer-to-peer teaching and learning at postgraduate level: the experience of two student-led NVivo workshops. Journal of Geography in Higher Education36(4): 603–612.
21.
Di GregorioS (2003) Teaching grounded theory with QSR NVivo. Qualitative Research Journal3(Special Issue): 79–95.
22.
DurrantJO (2003) Explorations with qualitative inquiry courses and Geographic Information Systems. Qualitative Research Journal3(Special Issue): 41–55.
23.
EsteDSieppertJBarskyA (1998) Teaching and learning qualitative research with and without qualitative data analysis software. Journal of Research on Computing in Education31(2): 138–154.
24.
EvansGL (2013) A novice researcher’s first walk through the maze of grounded theory: rationalization for classical grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review1.
25.
FitzgeraldGKellyPVCernuscaD (2003) NVivo as a cognitive tool for training novice qualitative researchers: a constructivist approach. Qualitative Research Journal3(Special Issue): 24–40.
26.
FreitasFRibeiroJBrandãoC, et al. (2017) Learn by yourself: the self-learning tools for qualitative analysis software packages. Digital Education Review32: 97–117.
HenninkMHutterIBaileyA (2011) Qualitative Research Methods. London, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29.
HurworthR (2008) Teaching Qualitative Research: Cases and Issues. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
30.
JacksonK (2003) Blending technology and methodology: a shift toward creative instruction of qualitative methods with NVivo. Qualitative Research Journal3(Special Issue): 96–110.
31.
JacksonK (2017) Turning against each other in neoliberal times: the discourses of otherizing and how they threaten our scholarship. In: DenzinNKGiardinaMD (eds) Qualitative Inquiry in Neoliberal Times. New York: Routledge, 151–165.
32.
JacksonKPaulusTWoolfNH (2018) The walking dead genealogy: unsubstantiated criticisms of qualitative data analysis software (QDAS ) and the failure to put them to rest. The Qualitative Report23(13): 74–91.
33.
JohnstonL (2006) Software and method: reflections on teaching and using QSR NVivo in doctoral research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology9(5): 379–391.
34.
KaczynskiD (2003) Curriculum development strategies using qualitative data analysis software. Qualitative Research Journal3(Special Issue): 111–116.
35.
KalpokaiteNRadivojevicI (2016) Integrating ATLAS.ti into an undergraduate qualitative research course : evaluating students’ experiences. In: FrieseSRingmayrT (eds) Qualitative Data Analysis and Beyond. Technische Universität Berlin, 1–18. DOI: 10.14279/depositonce-5158
Koro-LjungbergMYendol-HoppeyDSmithJJ, et al. (2009) (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher38(9): 687–699.
38.
KuntzAM (2015) The Responsible Methodologist: Inquiry, Truth-Telling, and Social Justice. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
39.
LaveJWengerE (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Learning in Doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
LeitchJOktayJMeehanB (2016) A dual instructional model for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software integrating faculty member and specialized instructor: implementation, reflections, and recommendations. Qualitative Social Work15(3): 392–406.
41.
LincolnYSGubaEG (2013) The Constructivist Credo. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
42.
LockeLF (1989) Qualitative research as a form of scientific inquiry in sport and physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport60(1): 1–20.
43.
MacgowanMJBeaulaurierRL (2005) Using qualitative data analysis software in teaching about group work practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work25: 45–56.
44.
Mühlmeyer-MentzelASchürmannI (2011) Integrating software in the teaching of grounded theory methodology. Forum: Qualitative Social Research12(1).
45.
NardiB (1996) Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In: NardiBA (ed.) Context and Conciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 35–52.
46.
OsorioF (2006) The effects of computer assisted research on Chilean academics. Forum: Qualitative Social Research7(4).
47.
ParmeggianiP (2008) Teaching different research methods through the use of video analysis software for media students: a case study. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches2(1): 94–104.
48.
PaulusTBennettA (2013) Teaching qualitative research methods with ATLAS. ti: Beyond data analysis. In: ATLAS.ti user conference 2013: fostering dialog on qualitative methods, Berlin, Germany, 2013, pp. 1–15.
49.
PaulusTLesterJNDempsterP (2014) Digital Tools for Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
50.
PaulusTMBennettAM (2017) ‘I have a love–hate relationship with ATLAS.tiTM’: integrating qualitative data analysis software into a graduate research methods course. International Journal of Research & Method in Education40(1): 19–35.
51.
RichardsL (2003) Toward a working conference. Qualitative Research Journal3: 9–11.
52.
RobertsLDBreenLJSymesM (2013) Teaching computer-assisted qualitative data analysis to a large cohort of undergraduate students. International Journal of Research & Method in Education36(3): 279–294.
53.
RodikPPrimoracJ (2015) To use or not to use: computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software among early-career sociologists in Croatia. Forum: Qualitative Social Research16(1).
54.
SaldañaJ (2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: SAGE.
55.
SalmonaMKaczynskiD (2016) Don’t blame the software: using qualitative data analysis software successfully in doctoral research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research17(3).
56.
SchmiederC (2009) Technik der Legitimation – Legitimation der Technik. Eine qualitative Studie zur Verwendung von MAXqda in qualitativem Forschen. Freiburg: Freidok. Available at: http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/7082/ (accessed 2 December 2019).
57.
SchmiederC (2017) Constructing and using a large organizational dataset: identifying equity practices in an institutional civil rights database. In: SilverCWoolfNN (eds) Qualitative Analysis Using MAXQDA: The Five-Level Method. New York: Routledge, pp. 177–190.
58.
SchmiederCCaldwellKEHBechtolE (2018) Readying extension for the systematic analysis of large qualitative data sets. Journal of Extension56(6). Available at: https://joe.org/joe/2018october/a2.php (accessed 1 December 2019).
59.
SilverCRiversC (2014) Learning from learners: the role of technology acceptance and adoption theories in understanding researchers’ early experiences with CAQDAS packages. In: ATLAS.ti user conference 2013: fostering dialog on qualitative methods, Berlin, Germany, 2013, pp. 1–22.
60.
SilverCRiversC (2016) The CAQDAS postgraduate learning model: an interplay between methodological awareness, analytic adeptness and technological proficiency. International Journal of Social Research Methodology19(5): 593–609.
61.
SilverCWoolfNN (2015) From guided-instruction to facilitation of learning: the development of Fivelevel QDA as a CAQDAS pedagogy that explicates the practices of expert users. International Journal of Social Research Methodology18(5): 527–543.
62.
SilverCWoolfNN (2018) Qualitative Analysis Using MAXQDA. The Five Level QDA Method. New York: Routledge.
63.
SmitB (2014) Teaching Atlas.tiTM in South Africa: reflections on doctoral preparedness. Journal of Social Sciences40(2): 213–217.
64.
TaggC (2011) Reflecting on the impact of qualitative software on teaching. Forum Qualitative Social Research12(1).
65.
ThornC (2003) Why this conference?Qualitative Research Journal3(Special Issue): 6–8.
66.
WalshM (2003) Teaching qualitative analysis using QSR NVivo 1. The Qualitative Report8(2): 251–256.
67.
WoodsMPaulusTAtkinsDP, et al. (2016) Advancing qualitative research using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice in published studies using ATLAS.ti and NVivo, 1994–2013. Social Science Computer Review34(5): 597–617.
