Dr. Paulus’s discussion really helped to tie a lot of things
together for me, including how important the right CAQDAS package can be for a
researcher’s work. One of the themes I’ve picked up on this semester is the lack
of support and even access young researchers have when it comes to CAQDAS
packages. Many of our readings and discussion have focused on this. So I was not
shocked to hear Dr. Paulus comment on the double standard related to the trend
for universities to have licenses for traditionally quantitative packages such
as SPSS and SAS, but nothing for qualitative researchers. I was however, (again)
validated in my own concerns related to the double standard.
The lack of training and support with coding and CAQDAS
packages was highlighted for me twice this week. First, I met with a panel of
reviewers hired to evaluate the Curriculum Studies program. One of the many
questions related to the ways in which grad students are supported in the
research process. One of the reviewers (from Wisconsin) was shocked when I
mentioned the University wide lack of access to qualitative research tools. I
was truly shocked at how many of the doc students present had no familiarity with
any type of software for qualitative data!
Later in the week during my proposal writing class my professor
was speaking about coding and had us briefly practice the initial stages of the
coding process. (The class is taught by my advisor so I was familiar with much
of this.) He mentioned – only briefly – the possibility of using a program like
NVivo and several members of the class had questions. From here I hijacked the discussion and
briefly shared some of the insights from our class (Hopefully, I got it right
and did the class justice!) This included the fact that there are several programs
that cost money and that DeDoose might be an inexpensive option. A lot of my
classmates were not aware of video transcription software and it appeared as if
several students planned to use video in their data collection.
What I’m trying to highlight is the intense need for faculty
and university support when it comes to modern qualitative data analysis. If
one of the top C&I programs in the nation is so far behind I can only
imagine what it is like at other schools. Imagine how inclusion of courses and
support of digital data analysis could enhance the overall transparency of the
research process. The little I’ve learned through this class will prove
invaluable as I begin my dissertation process and I actually feel horrible that
so many of my peers are completely unaware of the vast resources available.
This is my rant for the night, more to come I’m sure!
I nodded my head in agreement as I read your post. I recently gave a talk on the digital tools book at a conference. We were given 2 hours to introduce the audience to the theoretical and methodological implications of using digital tools for qual and also to highlight a few tools for each 'phase' of the research process. As we finished up and left the venue, my first comment was...I continue to be surprised (but also not at the same time) at the unfamiliarity with digital tools and qualitative research. I think you are so right! We MUST work to increase support for both graduate students and faculty. We also must work to educate around the potentiality of using digital tools, like NVivo!
ReplyDeleteAND LOVE YOUR TITLE! :)
ReplyDelete