I really enjoyed class yesterday, learning about NVivo and thinking through the act of 'coding' qualitative data. Two things have stayed with me from our discussion:
First, I've been reflecting on the ways in which NVivo sets you up to think about coding in a particular way. Obviously, you can 'manipulate' the package to do what you need; however, this is a good reminder about the importance of working toward coherency across your methodology-method-analytical approach-selection of digital tools. Coherence requires that we compare and contrast packages in light of our analytical focus and purpose. This, of course, requires time and even playing with packages across one project to see what feels most intuitive and allows us the MOST flexibility.
Second, I've been really struck with this idea around not having adequate opportunities to explore software packages that support the analysis process, particularly as graduate students. There is a long history of minimal attention being given to the place of CAQDAS packages in qualitative methods training. I would argue that the early experiences with technology and qualitative inquiry training (or the lack thereof) create long lasting patterns in subsequent generations of scholars. Of course, it not simply about 'training' in CAQDAS use; rather, it is the dual task of 'training' and 'practicing reflexivity' around technology choices. Nonetheless, we have a ways to go in this area. I hope this semester is one small step forward in your training process. We'll keep at it...
No comments:
Post a Comment