moving toward the collaborative

After our discussion in class yesterday, I've been thinking more about the whole notion of collaborative qualitative research. So very much of the academia is structured to reward individual work, even though many institutions are moving toward a call for and support of interdisciplinary research teams. Nonetheless, historically, there has been a strong tendency to promote the notion of the lone scholar, working away on their *individual* ideas. With the emergence of new technologies, to some extent, there is an opportunity for us to rethink how collaboration can 1) be supported and 2) be promoted. From ATLAS/NVivo/MAXQDA to collaborative video conferencing (Skype/Google Hangout), there are new opportunities to think as a collective and generate something we could not generate alone. The notion of distributed cognition is something that can also pervade how we pursue research.

Transparency is in the details...

I was really struck by one of TP's comments yesterday -- transparency (in the research process) is found in the details...

Yes and yes.

It is easy to forget that it is in the chronicling of the details that we re-create/re-present the research process for outsiders. We create an opportunity for others make sense of our process, making visible our every step.

CAQDAS packages do seem to provide one avenue by which to make the process visible. As we've discussed in class, one of the common (and long-standing) critiques of qualitative research is that the process is 'hidden' from others, requiring us to trust that data analysis occurred and even that data was collected. I've found over the years that moving my entire research process to a space that records my chronicled thoughts/ideas, results in a publication that is far more transparent. The details are there for me to return to, include in my writing, and re-consider.

I think the possibilities for transparency continue to lead me to invest time and energy into using CAQDAS packages.

Post-class reflection -- moving the representation OFF the page

Many of your questions/reflections yesterday focused on the desire to explore (alternative) representations of findings/research further. I agree! We need to spend more time discussing this aspect of digital tools and qualitative research, as this is perhaps where we can identify some concrete ways to 'change' how we 'do' research.

Vannini's work brings together some really informative and inspiring ideas/practices related to sharing research with the larger populace. From community performances to cafe gatherings, these exemplars push us to expand how we share what we come to know. Check it out:

• http://www.popularizingresearch.net/

There are also a growing number of journals that are pushing authors/researchers to move beyond only representing there work with text. These journals are worth exploring.

• http://www.audiovisualthinking.org/
• http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/imr/
• http://www.jove.com/

You'll likely note that the majority of such journals are not in education. Nonetheless, these examples/models can be taken up and applied within our own substantive areas. Let's keep talking about this...

Attending to the assumptions of a CAQDAS package

I really enjoyed learning more about Dedoose this week. For me, the 'ah-ha' came as I have reflected upon the assumptions that drove (continue to drive) the development of Dedoose. Much like our discussion around NVivo, the assumptions underpinning Dedoose do certainly shape how the features are presented, designed, and even described. I think this reinforces the point that as qualitative researchers it is important to spend time exploring the packages to determine whether they:

• Feel intuitive in relation to your approach to research and preferences; 
• Seem to be easily aligned/used in relation to your analytical framework and epistemic assumptions; and
• Are accessible (financially and practically - e.g., Dedoose requires the Internet).

 Time.

This all takes time, money, and then a bit more time.

Is it worth the time?

I think so. It can takes years to become 'fully' versed in all that a CAQDAS package allows you to leverage; however, in my experience, it is time well spent. Also, I would argue that a shift away from being bound to paper-pen (which is also a technology) allows not only for a chronicling of your research to be preserved, but also opens up new ways to think about interacting with data. For instance, the potential of directly coding media-based data or incorporating multiple transcripts within your view, pushes us to expand how we come to know. Yet, are their 'dangerous' consequences to this shift in location (e.g., where the 'actual' analysis takes place -- electronically or not)? Whether with a package or not, we remain the interpreters and the consequences (often unintended) of our interpretation is always already present. Consequences are something we must always consider, regardless of whether we use CAQDAS or not. Nonetheless, positioning reflexive practice as a core research practice allows us to make explicit the steps we take in our analysis and representation of findings. By doing so, we start to unpack the (often unintended) consequences of our research endeavor (a reality true of all research).