 |
Programs have progressed dramatically and,
increasingly, divergently. The processes of
developing them were hugely exciting.
|
|
But research tools require constant, collaborative and
critical interaction between developers and researchers
if innovation is to continue. Software users must
be alert to the danger of corporate comfort in large
profits. Max Weber was right about routinisation!
|
|
Researchers need and will use qualitative
computing tools. They need and deserve relevant teaching
and writing on methods. There is precious little. And
there will be less if developers are able to sell
software without supporting it adequately.
|
|
Debate about the impact of computing on
qualitative research has stuck in the mud of
methodological territorialism and conservatism, weighed
down by technical incompetence and bogged in the boredom
of a development process that is more about marketing
claims than research challenges.
|
Did you say ‘surely it’s not so
bad?’ Did you point out that most universities now have
some computer tools for qualitative research and some
actually teach students how to use them? That
there are long reading lists on the subject?
Yes, but have you checked out
those courses? And have you noticed the dates on those
still-cited conference papers and books (many of which
are collected papers of long-ago conferences)? Or seen
that the programs they discuss don’t even exist now, and
the complaints they made about software were answered in
the first decade. They have historical interest of
course (many of Tom’s and my papers are in those
archeological collections!) And in some cases (Renate
Tesch’s work is the glowing example) their consideration
of methodological issues lasted because it rose above
mere argument about whether or not to use software or
which package to use. But in most cases I suspect it’s
because small coteries of commentators enjoy mutual
citation clubs, and there’s nothing else to cite. It’s
amazing how little is new in the literature of this
century.
Did you say maybe it doesn’t
matter? I think it matters very greatly. We’re talking
about researchers with rich data unable to manage even
basic analysis. And about serious ethical problems. When
you move outside the academic structure, people are much
more honest about these. So I started long years of trying
to help novice and experienced researchers from the
highly competent who just wanted to get the most from
software tools to what one of our programmers referred
to as the terminally confused, who had no training in
handling qualitative data and were trying to learn it
from a software package. And to create
networks and events
that
promoted critical, innovative thinking about software.
It was obvious then that
researchers were much helped by personal teaching.
Whilst online resources have progressed greatly, I think
that’s still so. Hence the effort to develop a worldwide
trainer
network to help those using the software
I was helping develop. And meanwhile, those years gave
me a clear picture of the lack of practical materials to
help these researchers do justice to their data. My
recent writing is for them.
For an actually up to date
overview of the current programs available, by the
trainers who run the active and important CAQDAS
Networking Project:
Choosing a CAQDAS package - A working paper, by Ann
Lewins and Christina Silver
