Last night we had a QDA Miner demonstration from OIT, a discussion of the readings related to CAQDAS and an introduction to Transana by yours truly.
A few insights during the discussion that I want to remember - the "textual laboratory" idea by Konopasek and the idea that CAQDAS can make qualitative research more "scientific" by grounding it in empirical, objectivist notions. While this is great for transparency and trustworthiness concerns, it also borders on making claims that the "truth" is "there in the data" if we just look closely enough and articulate enough. We have to keep remembering that WE are creating the truth through our interpretations, it's not there to be "discovered". (But the software will make it easier to back up those truth claims, I think.) Forgetting that this is all interpretation, though, is what, I think, causes some Denzinesque researchers to eschew the use of technology - it smacks of an objectivist worldview. How to keep the interpretive process at the forefront of analysis even while using technology?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this clearly articulates the concerns (whether justified or not) of some qual folks who view software in the research process as analogous to positivistic notions of reality (Silverman noted this). I think it might be good for us to tease out these various claims that some software packages make and/or trainers make around them and have opening dialogue around keeping the interpretive process at the forefront of analysis. Actually this is a great title for an entire section.
ReplyDeleteJ