Weitzman Software and Qualitative Research Readers are reminded that copyright subsists in this extract and the work from which it was taken. Except as provided for by the terms of a rightsholder's licence or copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder. The author (or authors) of the Literary Work or Works contained within the Licensed Material is or are the author(s) and may have moral rights in the work. The Licensee shall not cause or permit the distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory treatment of, the work which would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author. Weitzman, (2000) 'Software and Qualitative Research', Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S., Handbook of qualitative research, 803-820, Sage Publications Ltd © This is a digital version of copyright material made under licence from the rightsholder, and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Please refer to the original published edition. Licensed for use at the University of Bath for the course: "Professional Doctorate In Health" during the period 08/03/2006 to 31/08/2006. Permission reference: 0761915125(803-820)60276 ISN: 0761915125 30 SOFTWARE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH • Eben A. Weitzman he array of software available to support an introduction to and overview of the role of the work of qualitative researchers is ma- software in qualitative research, (b) a discussion T turing. A wide variety of useful tools are of the critical debates and concerns in the field now available to support many different ap- about the impact and appropriateness of using proaches to qualitative research. Most qualita- qualitative data analysis (QDA) software, (c) tive researchers can now find software that is ap- guidelines for choosing software to match indi- propriate to their analysis plans, the structure vidual needs, and (d) an indication of future di- of their data, and their ease-of-use and cost pref- rections for both scholarship on the use of QDA erences. However, making that appropriate software and development of such software. match still requires systematic analysis of the needs of the project and the researcher(s), and care- ful comparison of the software options available ♦ A Minihistory of the at the time of purchase with an eye kept fixed Use of Computers in firmly on those needs. There is still no one best program. Qualitative Research To help researchers understand what soft- ware can and cannot do to support their re- search efforts, understand both the potential Traditionally, qualitative researchers have car- benefits and pitfalls of using computers in quali- ried out the mechanics of analysis by hand: typ- tative research projects, and find software that is ing up field notes and interviews, photocopying suited to their needs, I provide in this chapter (a) them, “coding” by marking them up with mark- AUTHOR’S NOTE: My thanks to Norman Denzin, Nigel Fielding, Udo Kelle, Ray Lee, and Morten Levin for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. ♦ 803 804 ♦ METHODS OF COLLECTING AND ANALYZING EMPIRICAL MATERIALS Software and Qualitative Research 805 ers or pencils, cutting and pasting the marked And there has also been divergence, as develop- has been an outpouring of journal articles, a se- retrieve is the sine qua non of qualitative analysis. segments onto file cards, sorting and shuffling ers look for new and different ways to ries of international conferences on computers (p. 175) cards, and typing up their analyses. This picture conceptualize support for analysis. and qualitative methodology, thoughtful books has been slowly changing since the early to There are now tools available that can help on the topic (Fielding & Lee, 1991, 1998; I address these issues at more length through mid-1980s. At that point, some researchers were researchers who are using a wide variety of re- Kelle, 1995; Tesch, 1990; Weitzman & Miles, much of this chapter, particularly in the subsec- beginning to use word processors for the typing search and analysis methodologies, from 1995b), and special journal issues (Mangabeira, tions below headed “False Hopes and Fears,” work, and just a few were beginning to experi- grounded theory to textual analysis to narrative 1996; Tesch, 1991). “Real Hopes,” and “Real Fears,” and in the later ment with database programs for storing and ac- analysis to interpretive interactionism. It is im- Periodically, commentators have raised con- section headed “Debates in the Field.” cessing their texts. Most qualitative methods portant to emphasize that software is not now, if cerns about whether the range of available soft- textbooks at the time (e.g., Bogdan 8c Biklen, it ever was, something that is relevant only to ware is dominated by a particular approach, 1982; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Lofland & “positivist” or “quasi-positivist” approaches to methodology, or epistemology (see, e.g., ♦ What Software Can Lofland, 1984; Miles & Huberman, 1984) qualitative research. If you see language in this Coffey, Holbrook, & Atkinson, 1996; Lonkila, and Cannot Do made little, if any, reference to the use of com- chapter that does not match your approach, you 1995). Although there is certainly room for fur- puters. may find it helpful to do some speculative trans- ther development to support certain specific In the early 1980s, a couple of programs de- lation. For example, if the discussion is about analytic processes (I offer some suggestions signed specifically for the analysis of qualitative “verification” or “hypothesis testing” and your later in this chapter, and the list appearing in the Simply put, software can provide tools to help data began to appear (Drass, 1980; Seidel & approach is postmodern, the discussion may chapter titled “Reflections and Hopes” in you analyze qualitative data, but it cannot do the Clark, 1984; Shelly & Sibert, 1985). Early pro- seem irrelevant. But it may be that there is a way Weitzman & Miles, 1995b, has only begun to analysis for you, not in the same sense in which a grams like QUALOG and the first versions of to understand the concept that makes sense be addressed), these concerns are clearly miss- statistical package like SPSS or SAS can do, say, The Ethnograph and NUD•IST reflected the from your perspective, such as “looking to see ing the mark. In this chapter, I suggest a wide multiple regression. Many researchers have had state of computing at that time. Researchers typ- whether there is more material supporting, or variety of types of programs that are available the hope—for others it is a fear—that the com- ically accomplished the coding of texts (tagging contradicting, a certain assumption or interpre- to support a wide variety of research ap- puter could somehow read the text and decide chunks of text with labels—codes—that indicate tation.” The same software tools that someone proaches. Qualitative researchers are not lim- what it all means. That is, generally speaking, not the conceptual categories the researcher wants else might use for classical hypothesis testing ited only to coding-oriented programs, or even the case.1 Thus it is particularly important to em- to sort them into) by typing in line numbers and might be very useful for your purposes. to programs explicitly marketed to qualitative phasize that using software cannot be a substitute code names at a command prompt, and there Many programs now allow the researcher to researchers. For example, as Fielding and Lee for learning data analysis methods: The re- was little or no facility for memoing or other an- specify relationships among codes and use these (1998) point out, there are a variety of options searcher must know what needs to be done, and notation or markup of text. In comparison to relationships in analysis, and to write memos for those wishing to follow the suggestion of do it. The software provides tools to do it with. marking up text with colored pencils, this felt and link them to text and codes. Some programs Coffey and Atkinson (1996) that text retrievers The following are some of the things comput- awkward to many researchers. And computer allow the researcher to create links between dif- may be more helpful for discourse analysis than ers can be used for to facilitate the analysis pro support for the analysis of video or audio data ferent points in the text (hypertext), and a small code-and-retrieve programs. Fielding and Lee cess: was at best a fantasy. but growing handful allow the use of audio and go on to argue that But the landscape has changed dramatically, video in place of, or in addition to, text. And in terms of both software and the literature de- there are a variety of approaches to linking cate- developers of CAQDAS [computer-aided quali- 1. Making notes in the field; voted to it. By the time the late Matt Miles and I gorical and quantitative data (e.g., demograph- tative data analysis software] programs have in- 2. Writing up or transcribing field notes; wrote Computer Programs for Qualitative Data ics, test scores, quantitative ratings) to text and creasingly included facilities for proximity 3. Editing: correcting, extending, or revis- Analysis (Weitzman & Miles, 1995b), we re- for exporting categorical and quantitative data searching, which might be useful for narrative ing field notes; viewed no fewer than 24 different programs that (e.g., word frequencies or coding summaries) to analysis, and for “autocoding” which could be adapted to some kinds of semiotic analysis. The 4. Coding: attaching key words or tags to were useful for analyzing qualitative data. Half quantitative analysis programs for statistical provision of new features in CAQDAS pro- segments of text, graphics, audio, or of those programs had been developed specifi- analysis. Finally, there are now some free pro- grams reflects the generally close relationship video to permit later retrieval; cally for qualitative data analysis, whereas the grams available, notably two from the U.S.