When using digital tools and information as part of your research, it is important to have some basic information in regards to organizing, storing, converting and encrypting files. It might also be helpful for you to know how to find research resources online.
Organizing files and folders:
1) Windows
2) Mac OSX (forum suggestions)
Storing/backing up files and folders on a:
1) Flashdrive (aka jumpdrive, thumbdrive, etc.)
2) External hard drive
3) DVD-R - This link is for burning CDs, but it is essentially the same process except that the computer you are using must have a DVD burner and you may also need to download burning software like Nero. DVDs are better for storing large amounts of information genereated from your research project because they can hold more information. There are also DVD-DLs, which are DVDs with a dual layer that can hold more information. You need to have a burner that supports this to be able to use them.
4) CD-R - Simple back up to CDs.
5) Dropbox - Online storage (2GB free), creates a file on your computer that is saved online and on any other device where you download Dropbox.
Common Media File Types and Conversion:
1) Documents- .doc, .rtf, .txt, .pdf
2) Photo- .bmp, .gif, .jpg, .tif
3) Video- .avi, .mov, .wmv, .mpg
4) Audio- .mp3, .wav, .wma
5) More Common File Extensions - and their meanings
6) The choice of file extensions is a part of some applications. Saving the file as the extension you need is the best option.
7) Sample Conversion Program- Be mindful that there are many of these programs and you may have to search google for one to fit your needs.
Encrypting Data to keep it safe:
What is encryption, and why use it? Encryption can also "minimize risk" in the IRB process when storing sensitive information about human subjects.
1) Windows
2) TrueCrypt- Free Open-Source Encryption for Mac, Windows or Linux (must download)
3) Mac OSX FileVault
4) Mac OSX using Disk Utility
Online Databases/Information Access:
1) OSU Libraries- This is your main point to access articles since you are currently a student. From this link, don't forget to select "Off-campus Sign-in" in order to have access to the database.
2) ERIC- ERIC provides unlimited access to more than 1.2 million bibliographic records of journal articles and other education-related materials, with hundreds of new records added twice weekly. If available, links to full text are included (from website).
3) Digital Libraries- A digital library is a library in which collections are stored in digital formats (as opposed to print, microform, or other media) and accessible by computers. The digital content may be stored locally, or accessed remotely via computer networks. A digital library is a type of information retrieval system (from wikipedia). Examples include the National Science Digital Library and the National Digital Library Program through the Library of Congress.
4) Google Reader- Less academic in nature, though still extremely efficient and helpful is Google Reader. Via RSS feeds, Google Reader constantly checks your favorite news sites and blogs for new content. There are an amazing number of sites with an RSS feed and Google Reader allows you to search these for content you may be interested in.
5) citeulike- This is a community where academics post and rate articles. You can create a library and search by keyword. There are also groups surrounding various research interests. I have found many articles here that I didn't find searching by the same tags on the OSU library site.
Assignment 1- Read "Going Digital and Staying Qualitative" (this link leads you to a place where you can download the pdf) and leave a comment to this post with your thoughts. Questions to consider... How will digital tools enhance your research? What digital tools are you most interested in learning? What are the potential dangers of digital tools in qualitative research? Click on "comments" below to post your thoughts (Please note, we used to read a different article, so comments from past classes might not answer these same questions).
Posts
Automated bank statement filing with Hazel
12 years ago
117 comments:
I tried to understand this paper. I see two opposing ideas/tendencies, one toward traditional, and the other more diverse. And I agree that with the always updating software and technology, data collection, analysis, and representation is not likely to stick to the one ethnographic way. However, with the many choices we have, we still need to be careful not to choose the programs before considering the need for the right tools to use. This article also suggests hypertext as the alternative for the co-existence/combination/balance of the two contrasting ends.
Initially, the essay makes a convincing case for the subjectivity involved in any form of research. That is, there is no "one story" to tell in either quantitative or qualitative study. The authors emphasize the rise of postmodernism as a solution to the breakdown of the old ideas of what research should look like. Ultimately, the fact that the essay is over 12 years old cannot be ignored. Postmodernism is not as established as one might have envisioned in would be in the 1990s. Also, hypertext hasn't exactly taken the academic world by storm. The most useful aspect of the essay is the reflection on the role of technology in doing research - for better or worse.
I first want to apologize for not posting. I'll be honest, I totally forgot. Between getting the birds and creating my other blog it completely slipped my mind. Reading the article it made me think about the positives and negatives to online computing tools to help with qualitative research. On the one hand, they can be great in that they can take out some of the "human error." As we all know, though, technology can be difficult at times. I wonder what problems the use of technology or the over reliance of technology will have on qualitative research in the years to come. At some point, will researchers even be necessary or will be be able to have the technology do the research for us?
I am a person who learns better by doing and seeing rather than just reading, so it is somewhat hard for me to conceptualize how the CAQDAS programs work without playing around with them myself. However, it seems that, despite any controversy surrounding it, the coding software would be extremely time-saving and helpful for analyzing data. I am excited to learn more about it in this class.
The world is complex, as is human nature. I get nervous when scholars (or bloggers for that matter) attempt to essentialize the human experience, thus the trend toward homogeneity in qualitative research is troubling and signals a trend toward making qualitative research methods more like quantitative ones. (I personally do not always "trust" quantitative projects - surveys in particular - since context and standpoint are not always highlighted).
I find it important to note that this article stresses that using CAQDAS is not analysis but a means or storing and categorizing data. This is an essential component of the qualitative/quantitative debate.
I can see the relevance of computing tools such as Delicious, Social Bookmarking. If every researcher went through their own or other's work as they read and labeled key words, the huge volume of knowledge out there could potentially be more and more organized and easier to retrieve. I have not heard of the technology in this quote,"This means marking the text in order to tag particular chunks or segments of that text. Codewords are thus attached to discrete stretches of data. The purpose of the software is, at root, twofold. First, it facilitates the attachment of these codes to the strips of data. Second, it allows the researcher to retrieve all instances in the data that share a code. Such code-and-retrieve approaches are exemplified in programs such as The Ethnograph, one of the most widely used of all the applications", but it seems to be quite similar
I took two main things from this article. First, it made me question the use of QAQDAS software in my research. Because I feel that ethnography research is most rich when it is pluralistic, fragmented, messy, and multi-layered, QAQDAS, in its ability to synthesize, code, or "commonize" certain themes or trends in one's data seems to go against the grain of presenting the pluralistic account I referenced above. At the same time, however, the article did note that the software can be used more as an organizational tool, without necessarily getting into grounded theory. This is something I would like to learn more about as I am comfortable using it as an organization tool, but not as a way to get at a grounded theory because in my research, I am not looking to establish a theory.
The other insight that came to mind in reading this article was with respect to hypertext. I think this an awesome idea; allowing readers to break away from linear forms of reading and storytelling. Rather, the reader can have a more personalized interaction with the text in that they can pursue more in-depth particular topics as they become readily available via hypertext links. This would seem to fit nicely with my preference for ethnographic writing. One problem I conceptualized, however, was the fact that dissertations and formal publications seem to have as the "gold standard" traditional linear texts, with little or no room to get creative one's presentation of the research. How do we negotiate this if we are interested in hypertext for our dissertation or more formal publications? If at some point in the future I am able to write and publish a book, I would be interested in having a CD or weblink accompany to direct readers to a more non-linear, hypertextual version of my work. This same thing would also be possible if one were to publish more of their work online, which seems to be an emerging trend in academia.
The article raised several key points for me though they have been already covered by my classmates in some form.
(1) The article was written long before the internet became widespread, especially the high speed internet connections we know today - it seemed to be an harbinger of future debate - how will research be consumed in a non-linear fashion? What will the effects be?
(2) This leads into the use of hypertext. I like to call this the Choose Your Own Adventure approach and one that I prefer. It will opens up not only an individual, personalized experience as a reader, but also provides the use of a variety of mediums not found in the traditional bound material.
I would love to hyperlink my dissertation. I've hyperlinked almost all my research paper bibliography's since I've been at OSU which is nice when I send my paper to classmates who can read more.
The software piece has been covered already, but it should be mentioned that we always lose something in translation, even with video...even if its a feeling in the moment....
I was especially enthralled at the article's first 7,8 pages of the text. I agree with Monica, I have a hard time conceptualizing some things. However, I'm clear that a move to a "monovocal gold standard" is antithetical to the very nature of qualitative research. Everyone who hears such a statement should definitely be concerned.
As I think about hypertext, I must agree with the issue brought up in the article, about it seeming overwhelming to the point that technophobes like me won't even bother. I feel like it is an important option for technophiles, but for the rest of us mere mortals, we are not the least bit interested.
Honestly I had a little of difficulty understanding the use of CAQDAS in qualitative research addressed in the article since my knowledge on qualitative research is limited and CAQDAS is certainly a new technology to me. While reading the article, anyway, I was amazed by the fact that analytical processes in qualitative research can be enhanced by the use of this technology. To me, this blurs the boundary between quantitative and qualitative research. I am more like a quantitative research person, and one of the things I like about quantitative research methods is that I can put data into statistics, using software programs (such as SPSS and MINITAB) and get numbers that might give me somewhat straightforward answers to my research questions. Basically, I like the explicitness of data analysis processes and outcomes in quantitative research. I guess CAQDAS can make data analysis processes in qualitative research quite explicit because we can actually put a large amount of qualitative data into descriptive codes and CAQDAS can trace themes that occur in data.
CAQDAS sounds a great tool, but I think what is important is how to properly and effectively use it. From my experience with statistical programs for quantitative research, not all programs and their features fit the needs of quantitative researchers; they need to be selectively used, according to research designs and questions. And I guess this may be the same in using CAQDAS and other related software programs for qualitative research. Since this is my first exposure to CAQDAS, I am not sure of what specific strengths and pitfalls it has. So hopefully we will have a chance to talk about how CAQDAS can be effectively used to assist qualitative researchers.
After reading the article, I found a sense of sameness in the "various ways to examine studies" approach to the research argument concerning both methodology and computer data. Many of the arguments surrounding anthropology and ethnography were familiar, especially with feminist theory. However, the various terminology with computer software read as foreign. I read in one of the postings that we won't spend much time with CAQDAS, but I do hope to at least begin to unpack data coding because I've read many articles about its benefits.
At the time the article was written, there was still a lot of doubt as to what kinds of materials, particularly qualitative materials, could be represented on the internet. I was working in industry at the time, and as I recall, the argument was that the internet would be fine for sharing measurements, calculations, etc., but that hypertext would be inadequate for expressing things that needed to be described.
Of course, this limitation existed with print media as well, and that didn't stop us from writing journals. The fact is that any description is limited by the language, symbolism, and tools available to describe it. Resistance to the use of new tools often comes from a fear that the past guardians of knowledge (in this case, the publishers of journals) would lose control and influence.
I enjoyed reading the “rediscovery of rhetoric” part; it illustrates a break-away from the many dualities in which pure sciences take roots. This part reminds me the paradigms we learned in the 800 course. It is interesting to ponder the relationship between rhetoric and logic in today’s qualitative research inquiries. I also appreciate the authors’ explanation of the purpose of CAQDAS. It seems that coding lies in the heart of the software, but at the same time, a caveat that I take away from the article is that “coding data for use with computer programs is not analysis”, and by no means could replace researchers’ analysis. Finally, the hypertext approaches proposed by the authors sound very promising. The very nature of qualitative research calls for the complexity and non-linearity of text representation. The hypertext approaches have the potential to provide such complexity and non-linearity. One thing that I am curious is that the article was published more than 10 years ago, and for my limited background for qualitative research, I have not been acquainted with many exemplars that take the hypertext / hypermedia approaches in qualitative research.
Reading this article presented two major challenges for me on a personal level. The first is that I consider myself an "immigrant" when it comes to technology. So unlike many of my much younger classmates, I still have a great deal to learn about the basics and in addition, I am constantly struggling to become more open-minded and comfortable in this unfamiliar territory.
The second challenge is that I have been away from "formal" schooling for so long that my knowledge and experience has many "gaps" that need to be filled. Therefore, I essentially read this article for content and not in a critical fashion.
That being said, I was intrigued by the uses of technology in qualitative research to increase speed, comprehensiveness, coding (multiple and overlapping) and retrieval. I also found the discussion on hypertext software to be fascinating. The notion of a "more interactive relationship between the text at its reader" sounds very appealing. With my luck, I would be the one who gets lost in "hyperspace!"
So, until I take a few more classes in qualitative research and have some "hand-on" experiences with the process, I do not feel qualified or comfortable to comment any further
After reading the article, it made me think about the usefulness of using technology such as CAQDAS, Nudist, etc., as a tool to code my audio data. Additionally, it made me think about the potential advantages of using technology over field notes. Field notes are good for capturing physical gestures and description of the physical space (which I could videotape, but, that may seem intrusive in some cases), but audio recordings capture largely what I want to observe in some cases when I do research on teachers and do interviews, and in this sense, the technology initially seems much more valuable than trying to record interviews/observations view field notes.
The use of CAQDAS is very interesting and I believe that they are carrying out some similar type of research in the Science Education program here at OSU. The program they are using tries to identify phrases or certain portions of text that are recurring throughout student essays. As in the article, this program wouldn't analyze it would just simply identify repetitions or certain "key" phrases. They are using this to try and identify misconceptions students have regarding evolution by natural selection. Hypertext was also a new and interesting concept. Giving the reader some control over navigation through an article would be amazing as we all have struggled through some of the literature we have encountered. As someone else had mentioned, I too would worry about getting lost in the process. I imagine that as one would become more familiar with hypertext, more complex reading would be possible.
At first as I read, I started feeling really overwhelmed. Using CAQDAS sounds like the future of qualitative research, but I feel I often face a huge learning curve when it comes to technology. On the one hand, I know that it can make my life easier, but on the other hand I worry that I will be unable to really use the CAQDAS appropriately.
I am looking forward to learning how to use this technology in this class as I prepare to do my research. My hope is that I can learn to become adept enough with it that I actually use it.
I have learned some of the technology discussed in the article; however, as a result of not having the need to use it in the past, I have forgotten what I once knew.
I am also concerned that I can really stay on top of my research enough to first figure out how to use this technology and then to organize my research with it.
Three points are in order here with respect to the article, Qualitative Data Analysis: Technologies and Representations by Coffey, A., B. Holbrook and P. Atkinson.
First, the existence of multiple approaches to the representation and analysis of qualitative data is certainly not surprising if one views these approaches as subsets of the continued paradigm proliferation, as Lather calls it. As postpositivist paradigms continue to expand and, in some cases, overlap, it is logical, even common sensical, for the methods through which we represent and analyze our data to undergo a simultaneous shift, otherwise, one would be stuck in a one-size-fits-all approach. For instance, the data collection and analysis methods used by a traditional ethnographer would not mirror those of a critical ethnographer based on the fact that they both hold contrasting worldviews from an epistemological and ontological standpoint.
Second, with respect to the grounded-theory bias of CAQDAS (according to the authors), qualitative research has always been hailed and touted as a champion of generating new theory through a grounded theory approach (not debating or disputing this claim here). Thus, it appears that computer programmers might be fulfilling a demand based on the messages they receive as to the dominant methods or approaches in qualitative research.
Third, the authors’ alternative—the synthesis approach of hypertext—to embracing either a multiplicity of approaches to data representation and analysis or a unitary approach, neatly falls within the modernist tradition by promoting the single alternative as a representational and analytical panacea, or the ideal solution. Furthermore, I am yet to understand how hypertext can serve as a data analysis tool for the qualitative researcher, and, hence, am unable to comprehend its synthetic quality in light of the debate concerning the representation and analysis of qualitative data. Notwithstanding the aforementioned comments, I am open to exploring this (hypertext) technology.
This article did give me, to some degree, a heads up and a comprehensive understanding on what the course will proceed and why CAQDAS would be an approach to consider. I had a great appreciation on that the authors did not try to talk us into adopting a new technology per se. Rather, we are invited to think about how to find out and/or employ techniques that will be best (or at least better) aligned to the heart of our research method/design.
My second thought is that I hope the technology won’t complicate the matter…(I know it does sometimes, and that shies me away from using it again…) But it is also my hope and enthusiasm to see how all techniques unfold for our research projects. :-)
my sense is that this article highlights the balance act that others have mentioned- do we want a messy experience in which the researcher is really close to the data? Or do we want a more efficient less time consuming process that creates space between the scholar and their data? I don't think there is a right answer to this and it depends on the scholar and the research project. I think it's good that scholars are having this debate, especially as technology develops. For example, one day scholars may not have to transcribe interviews. Although this sounds like a great thing, I think scholars would lose something if they relied on data too much through the whole process.
With the expected tendency toward unexpectedness, the creation of hypertext can give more flexibility either writer/observer or readers. In a sense, this tendency corresponds to the prosperity of postmodernism in the twentieth century. As a new comer for qualitative research, I would like to have more choices and possibility to explore this journey. As such, I see the learning of data analysis with technology beneficial to a qualitative researcher whether he will adopt this approach or not.
ps. I am Shu-Chen Chiang:)
After reading the article, I have two thoughts.
1) I am having a hard time conceptualzing the idea of hypertexting a research article in my head. I get the concept on an intellectual level, but it would help me to actually see an example. This would help bring home the points that the authors make.
2) Technology is the way of the future. I am intimidated by the labor intensiveness of qualitative research. If technology makes it less labor intensive for me, than I am all for learning its use.
One last point, I skimmed very quickly through the other points and want to bring out something already said but worth reiterating. The article was published in the mid-1990s, just as the internet was hitting its stride. I was a sophomore in college in 1996, and I remember having to dial in to check my e-mail. Researching and using online databases were not common. I would be interested in hearing if the authors' points of view would change in today's technology filled society.
I recently completed my general exams, over 250 pages of writing. I was wondering, however, how much more of a rich document it could have been if it had hyperlinks that would take the reader to the actual citation. In this way, a reader could determine for themselves what context the quotation was used in or if the quote was taken out of context.
In writing a research paper, the reader would be able to link to actual transcriptions or recorded voices of interviews. The reader would then be able to "read" the prosodic features of the speaker, gaining a deeper insight to not only what was stated but how it was stated.
Having said all of this, I would still rather read research on a piece of paper, as I did the article, than on a computer screen. But to have the text available with links... well could really be cool!
First, I agree with Mitsu that this is a fairly old article in technology years. It would be interesting to see how the author would incorporate some more current technologies into the qualitative research process.
I also think that the idea of a non-sequential presentation of findings, such as hypertext, is interesting. More nontraditional presentations of data and arrangements of text seem well suited to some qualitative research projects.
I like the idea that such formats allow for more openness and complexity, and I think it allows the reader to play a greater role in the creation of a particular reading experience.
While reading this paper, I thought about the implications of the demands that hypertext can create for a researcher and weighed those against the benefits of have all of the research actively connected. The point made in 8.10 regarding the labor-intensive nature of hypertext seem as though it might be overwhelming for those persons for whom technology itself seems to be a great challenge, thus only creating stress and strain on the researcher. However, for those who have grown-up or grown accustomed to technology this seems like a perfect solution to the problem of many data sources as these people would be used to normal internet usage of links and the logical connections that these provide.
My issue with the idea of hypertext comes to play only in realizing that as I research, when it comes time to writing a theorized account that I find it necessary to physically lay information out in front of me. Thus, hypertext would make the information easily accessible and logically connected/filed. But without a greater understanding of the inherent value of hypertext, it seems only to be a solid choice for filings and accessing data.
Reading the article allowed me to share in the process of learning about the methods of CAQDAS and hypertext/hypermedia rather than making a direct choice. I was not necessarily able to advocate for either method based on my research. Recently, I realized that I have misunderstood the part of qualitative research as ‘mixed-methods’ to interpret survey questions (both types of ‘quantative’ and ‘qualitative’ ) and analyze them to explain unpredicted behaviors and attitudes. At the same time, (although it is embarrassing to say) I thought of coding as similar to categorization (or more than symbolizing or simplifying keywords/issues) because the process of coding is a way of organizing research process and similarities/differences in survey design. When interpreting data (after coding), I assumed that some results not supportive for codes suggest a new exploratory idea to a researcher (the way in which an accident opens one's eyes during ethnographic study?). Simply put, I had confused coding with categorization. I think that I might be more familiar to lead research questions based on what I have (materials) and what I would like to consider (implications). Thus, although I have not used the CAQDAS, I was thinking to use that program after building my future survey questions because it could be constantly used to develop a research process from findings to consideration.
After reading the article and rethinking about the concept of ground theory, a linear research method and also the opposing way of it- hypertext and hypermedia,- I appreciated the diversity of computer techniques at first. It surely sounds creative that a researcher can freely expand his/her thinking process and learn during reading hypertexts based on his/her own cognition process. Here, the cognition process can go to in every direction, like from the middle to beginning rather than in the linear way. Moreover, the researcher will give a chance to readers to find supplementary resources in order to understand a reading better with multiple resources more than word texts. I truly believe in the power of visual texts to support word texts in qualitative research so that readers can more easily understand a reading and learn diverse terms and situations found during qualitative research. However, I wonder whether using hypertext/hypermedia can be always effective for both an author and reader. What I now may worry about is how the researcher can effectively organize his/her writing in order not to overlook the ways that readers’ attentions and thinking process can be affected by many links and new contents. At the same time, I wonder whether readers can maintain their focus and thinking process to understand an author’s logics.
I could be totally misguided in my understanding of this article because I did not use both methods of CAQDAS and hypertext/hypermedia for my own research. However, as this article said, all qualitative researches conducted in a traditional way or even CAQDAS don’t need to be replaced with the hypertext/hypermedia because in some cases, the constant research under an organized idea can be effective.
I'm not sure that I necessarily see the uses of coding techniques and hypertext as a move "away" from linear reading, nor as a means for "readers [to become] authors of their own reading" (par. 8.4). However, I believe that the uses of coding methods and hypertexts aid the rhetoric. It is true that discourse is "no longer consigned to the margins of legitimate scholarship" (par. 3.1), for it now includes voices other than those in power. At the same time, though, it aids the clarity of language, which in turn help us stay on track (in our line), BUT without having to segregate, dismiss, or ignore other knowledge or voices.
I like the idea of using hypertext, especially as a reader who often wants immediate access to the corresponding research and studies embedded in text. The non-linear nature that hypertext allows for both researchers and readers to organize their thoughts about a particular topic in the way that makes most sense to them. I do see it to be a bit of a problem because in my limited experience with web design, creating hypertext can be time-consuming, and since the article was published, I would think more convenient technology has been developed. I wasn't entirely sure about CAQDAS and the use of coding, but I know that is a future topic in class. Overall, I think the article was a little confusing simply because of the use of jargon I'm not entirely familiar with, but it did help to give me an idea of some of the issues with using technology in an ethnographic study.
As our reliance on technology continues to increase, I can see more of a reliance on technology for qualitative data analysis. I know from personal experience how time consuming it is to through data and code it by hand. Qualitative research methods are often time-consuming so it is nice to have the tools to help with the process.
I also believe the use of technology might increase the validity of some qualitative methods for those who are purely quantitative. In some ways, it removes the human from the coding. As the article says though, it is up to the human to interpret the codes.
The article provided brief overview to the diversity of approach to doing qualitative research and centripetal tendency in methodology. As it predicted over 10 years ago, the different mode of textualism has been acknowledged as a way of authoring and the subjects of research, but I haven’t known that the new mode of representation of tool for qualitative researchers. It seems that CAQDAS plays a powerful role in coding and retrieving textual data. Using these tools must be a boon for grounded theorizing; by way of taking researchers off much burden of manual labor, it will help them to find meaningful patterns out of their data. As the paper pinpoints, the danger is to overrate on coding procedure. Tools are tools. It is the people and how they use it that makes the CAQDAS boon or danger.
Definitely using digital tools to do research is the most convenient way. I usually use some sources like Youdao.com which is an online translator and helps much when I'm writing and reading in English; carmen.osu.edu which is known by all of the buckeyes to discuss with classmates and submit assignments. All these sources are so important and convenient that I cannot imagine the life without them. However, recently I found a really shaming issue. I'm working in admissions office as part-time job. I'm searching many Chinese high school websites to gather information, when I found that there was so limited information there that I even couldn't find a contact person, or even a high school didn't have a website. I don't what I should do to improve this situation, but I know that this situation must be awared by someone and be improved someone. In this highly developed digital tool society, every Chinese people won't like this thing happen to us. I wish I could do something.
Ying Xu
I really enjoy reading this article combining with my fresh experience of using Transana 2.40. This article brings forth a core question in contemporary qualitative research: the crisis of representation and analysis of data. Fully recognizing the “complexity of social life, its collective representations, and the socially constitutive language”, I see hope from the synthetic approach proposed in this article, which embraces both pluralism and polyvocality and emphasizes the variety of analytic strategies as well as representational modes.
Though I am a novice qualitative researcher and a new user of Transana 2.40, I do expect to gain a fuller and more coloreful picture of CAQDAS from this class and dig deeper into the software like Transana or other useful to Discourse analysis.
In her 800 class, Dr. Lather talked about validity of research, which is the crux of scientific research. There are a number of criteria of a researcher has to meet for a good research, referential adequacy (well developed data corpus), thick and clear data description, audit trail, among others.
Having read reading Coffrey et al's long and dense article, I found the article offered a somewhat similar argument on the important of accessibility of research (research process and data)for wider users. The Digital tools prominently characterized by easy access hypertexts and hyperlinks provide users rich research resources in a convenience setting. As Coffrey et al. suggested, the users could trail along research resources according to their needs. In that sense, digital tools offer research users more than simply to access research resources but to customize them as well.
Putting aside the revolutionary impacts of digital tools in the accessibility of research resources (and out of curiosity), I wonder how much digital tools can give "disadvantage" to the process of conducting qualitative research.
I myself, am an advocate of computer-aiding technology in many areas, research included. Yet I think the issue of convergence can be as much a result of the researcher as of the technology. It is easy to ‘fall in love’ with the latest and the greatest technological advances in one’s field. Having worked in advertising and graphic design for over twenty years (starting before the advent of the personal computer), I witnessed a similar phenomenon with the rise of technology and desktop publishing. Suddenly everyone thought that they were a designer, but it quickly became easy to distinguish the work of those whose thinking (or in this case, modes of analysis, thought, and representation) was confined to and conformed by the limits of the technology.
The problem persists when a researcher’s thinking (or methods of analysis) are shaped and confined by the technology as opposed to applying the technology to aid and foster a deeper understanding that leads to analysis. Implementing hypertext alone does not solve the problem the authors raise of the use of CAQDAS converging on a uniform mode of data analysis and representation, much of the responsibility still lies at the hands of the researcher.
The implementation of hypertext, for example, certainly allows the reader to dictate sequence (although I would argue not entirely), but certainly does not give them control over content. And then we should examine how much this interaction would allow the reader (if at all) to form their own representation, or whether it would still be dictated by the content. I think of the analogy of cable television and channels that often repeat programming. I have often seen the end of shows before catching the beginning, perhaps days later. And there are countless movies that I have yet to see in their entirety, but this randomness of sequence has little if any effect on the content.
I also take issue with some of the authors’ assertions, such as “coding data for use with computer programs is not analysis.” Coding is entirely a subjective exercise that is indeed a preliminary form of analysis — what gets coded and how, and perhaps more importantly, what is omitted. No matter how sophisticated the technology, the researcher still has control and responsibility for the analysis, and for extending beyond the confines and capacities of technology to represent it.
very helpful article. we always need to be thinking about the biases in technology. i'm heartened that the authors suggest that although CAQDAS is rigid when used to the letter, it doesn't have to be used that way.
Although I consider myself a postmodern researcher in my theoretical foundations, I feel almost positivist in my methodologies, finding absolute comfort in the concreteness of my research journal. Additionally, since I feel weak in technological capacity, reading about the potential computer-based future of ethnographic research scares me. Although I enjoyed reading about the simplification of the coding process via the CAQDA software, and believe that the linear approaches to analysis available through hypertext are appealing, I am still somewhat wary of the use of such tools. In particular I fear the potential of heightened congruence in research analysis suggested by Coffey, et al, worrying that researchers will rely too heavily on the tools instead of their own analytic capacities. Likely, though, my greatest inhibition towards CAQDAS and hypertext is simply the fear of the unknown, and once I have had an opportunity to utilize these research tools, my prejudices against their potential abuses will dissipate!
-Jennifer Blakley
I like CAQDAS. Points that I found especially cautionary and valid regarding its use are that 1) using software such as CAQDAS implies that 'data collection and analysis are discrete and linear', and 2) that the researcher is implicitly led toward the adoption of a particular set of strategies' as a consequence of use. An additional thought regarding use of htmls is that certain populations that are commonly target populations in the social sciences, being those of lower SES, would be excluded do to lack of computer access or savvy.
I find the idea of presenting research in a nonlinear format, such as hypertext, refreshing. It seems that we are often limited by the traditional linearity of research publication. I do agree with the authors, that it is important to consider the positives and negatives of a format such as hypertext and make a point not to limit ourselves to one form of research presentation. I also think that the growing popularity and ease of access to CAQDAS is changing how we carry out qualitative research ( I believe for the better). Personally, I have not yet tried to transcribe and code, but thinking about organizing and analyzing all of my data by hand is overwhelming and I am looking forward to learning how to use some form of CAQDAS.
-Jennifer Harrison
Honestly speaking, the topic being discussed is a new knowledge for me. The terms that are used by the authors quite unfamiliar for me. However, i realized that now we can find so much literature on computer tools/software in the market. For me, as a new comer in this field, i found that there is still pros and cons in using technology when collecting and analyzing the data. However, i believed that software such as CAQDAS could help researcher to support his/her data collection and data analysisprocess. One interesting point to use CADAQS is that it can speed up and linen up the coding process. On the other hand, some cons people said that it will distance researcher from data, and it seems that qualitative data being analyzed quantitatively. In line with the reading (Coffrey et al), it seems that they criticized the existing computer-based approach to qualitative data analysis. In conclusion, they stated that they "do not believe that all ethnographers should become users and navigators of hypertext and hypermedia systems now or in the near future".
I found it interesting that this article talked about how CAQDAS seems to be designed and used primarily for coding and grounded research, because in my limited experience with CAQDAS this is all that I had heard and seen. In light of this, I think the authors made a good point when they stated, “The categorization of textual data and the use of computer software to search for them appear to render the general approach akin to standardized survey or experimental design procedures. In our view qualitative research is not enhanced by poor imitations of other research styles and traditions.” (7.6). I appreciated the discussion about hypertext and interactive forms of data presentation. As a graduate student who is learning how to conduct my own research – I would really appreciate getting to see more representations of data in research articles so that I could interact more with the interpretations and conclusions made by the authors. I have read plenty of research articles, and have learned a lot about the conclusions that others have drawn…but I have not been able to look at the same data and attempt to make sense of it on my own.
-Ryan Harrison
Which one is more important? The format or the content? Or the combination of the format and the content? It is interesting that when things are simplified, people seem to be unsatisfied and advocate richness and complexity. When we are increasingly bombarded by complicatedness and become over in our heads, standardized and simplified representations are expected to make a comeback. Advances in technology make this cycle spin faster and faster. Researchers can be thrilled by the numerous possibilities of representing and analyzing data with the help of more and more hypermedia sources and software tools. On the other hand, they are worried about finding the most appropriate and effective way(s) to reach their audience in a time-efficient and energy-saving way. This is particularity true for novice researchers like me. To smooth the journey that seeks balance between more and less as well as centrifugal forces and centripetal forces, my guess is that future students who plan to take the qualitative way will have to attend more lab sessions like the one we are taking now and read more research blogs/hypertexts.
In this article, I particularly liked that the author included a section on the usefulness of feminist paradigms to correct/address biases that are inherent in all research (including supposedly objective research). I believe that self-critique, as outlined in feminist and Constructivist paradigms, is an element that should be made standard in all research, rather qualitative or quantitative.
First of all, I thought either this article was too long for an idea such as CAQDAS, or I was a slow reader. Anyways, I was thinking of quantitative research as a hard science research which relied on software an extracting data, but, here is CAQDAS rescuing the qualitative researchers in creating and organizing codes in the midst of their research process.
While reading I was imagining myself doing my research, carrying around piles color-coded folders, each tagged with a certain location and a name. On the half of my mind, picturing myself coding my notes onto CAQDAS, saved safely, on my computer, what a pretty picture, I hope it is as I pictured it…
I think that using CAQDAS software for coding and organizing qualitative data will be beneficial as it will aid in making the manual process normally used more efficient, thorough and faster. I agree that tagging and coding the text is not analysis and reasearchers should definitely be wary of this. Yet I do not think this is inherent in the software but resides in how the user uses it. I expect CAQDAS to be a useful tool to organize and search data, making more time for analysis since sorting everything will not have to be done manually.
I also found the idea of using hypertext an interesting option to expand on topics, provide avenues for further clarification and cross reference concepts and other's research. I think this nonlinear approach could definitely be of benefit in actually showing other media types such as pictures or audio so others could "see the research" or "hear the interview" and get a more accurate view of the culture being presented.
Qualitative research has been criticized about reliability and validity of data. The authors criticized technology has been brought into doing qualitative research in order to reduce or erase criticisms. The software in qualitative research mostly developed based on ground theory. For example CAQDAS is popular software that users can encode the text and help organize the data for the researchers. It also can help with more comprehensive and more complex code-and-retrieve tasks than can be achieve by manual techniques. Hypertext software allows the user to organized the data and easy to add comment and search. Moreover it allows the readers to interact with the text. This has changed the readers’ status to become the authors. Although the technology is useful to qualitative research, the researchers should be conscious. As the authors mentioned, the researchers misunderstand the benefit of the software. The software can only help researchers sorting, encoding and organizing the data. This does not mean the computer will act as a researcher in every duty. There is still no software that can analyze data. Technology should be consider as the tool , which help facilitate doing research. We as researchers should beware and apply technology to benefit doing researches, instead of damage the qualities of researches.
When the challenges of rigor and polyvocality appear at odds it appears to be a problem, but they seem very much connected to me. If the coding capabilities of current CAQDAS are boiled down versions of grounded theory, despite the veneer of scientism through code, they lack the quality of rigor that typifies a scientific rigor. This type of disconnect is reminescent of the mixed methods approach that brings qualitative research credibility via a quantitive approach. They seem to both miss the point.
If the postmodern turn, with its crisis of representation, cannot be conceptualized as a rigorous approach to analyzing qualitative data then it appears that the ethnographic endeavor is destined to be a "dreadful anachronism." This is not to assert that polyvocality is simply achieved through hypertext, but it does assume an attention to the complexity of representation and use of available tools to attempt outputs approximating the complexity of human/cultural research.
Overall, the idea of trying to find non-linear ways to present such densely complex data as accumulates in trying to do less and less colonizing ethnographic research is both mind-boggling but also necessary. Whereas there is much criticism over the reductionist and essentialist practices of representation that have occurred in more traditional ethnographies, finding multiple ways of allowing voices to speak for themselves and multiple ways of representation as through hypertext can also follow a similar colonizing road... if the researcher isn't extremely imaginative and open to instability of their argument, their methods and themselves as researchers among constant ambiguity. If Qualitative researchers can be critical and extremely vigilant about reflecting on their own standpoint, while dialogically being open to many other standpoints--and yet
provide this somehow along the various 'ways' into understanding--it seems that this type of hypertext work, could provide many more avenues for more complex social and cultural analysis across and inside intersections of many levels. And then since you working at so many intersecting planes you have figure so much more reflective analysis (i.e. why this is privileged over that?) so it could make for much deeper analysis but it could take much longer. Conversely, as the article discusses, I can see CAQDAS providing a way to put old wine in new bottles, or continuing to use traditional modes of linear and textual representation with a 'prettier' outward appearance that gives the air of better research, validated by all of these complex voices in contact and yet, the researcher has made little change in the way knowledge is defined and valued, for and by whom, or has given less time to understanding their own perspective and biases or the researcher-researched subjugation process.
I think the article explores the wide possibilites that technologies offer to the researcher. I think its appilicabilty is broad but it also increases the digital divide with academia as well as the way research is conducted. Depending on your research interest, your participants or sites of data might not require or facilitate the use of technology.
On the other hand, I recently videoconferenced for the first time thorugh skype and think technology bridges distances and opens the pool or resources that you can access. However, some things are lost from not meeting in person.
According to the article, digital tools have made the data collection, analysis and representation processes much easier and more efficient. I use digital video recorders now to videotape and am able to immediately transfer the data into an external hard drive. I can easily set up folders to organize the large amount of data, and don't have to worry about losing tapes (of course I need to take good care of the hard drive). What I'm interested in learning most is the type of digital tools that can ease the process of qualitative data analysis(e.g. transcribing, coding). Over the years, I have found that the qualitative data analysis is probably the most time consuming, and it would be helpful if we can utilize digital tools to make this task less daunting. As for the dangers of digital tools, I sometimes find myself relying on them too much. If I'm videotaping, I feel less inclined to take field notes because I know I can always access the videos later. In other words, the convenience provided by high tech sometimes prevents me from exercising my agency as a researcher.
How will digital tools enhance your research?
I think digital tools will allow me to be more organized with my research. For instance, having the capabilities of storing multi-media files in one database (Brown refers to this as “asset management software”) will ensure that I do not lose any pertinent data. I also believe that digital tools will provide me with flexible ways to collect data. For example, on-line interviews might be an option in a situation where a face-to-face interview cannot occur.
What digital tools are you most interested in?
Some of the digital tools that I am interested in include: digital video camera, digital research journal, digital audio recorder. I’m sure my list will grow as I learn more about digital tools in this class.
What are the potential dangers of digital tools in qualitative research?
Perhaps some of the dangers (or maybe more inconveniences) of digital tools include the expensive cost of the equipment and extensive training that might be needed to use the digital tools.
The idea of “we can continue to use the most appropriate data collection method and yet still digitize the data” is really appealing to me. The author mentioned “Optical Character Recognition technology (OCR)”, which allows us to digitize text sources quickly and easily. This is exactly what I want! I am the type of person who likes to scrape down pages and pages of notes when doing field observation, but hates to type those notes into a computer. I guess the technology would be a happy solution for me.
Talking about collecting digital data, I also LOVE the idea of “digital camcoder”, even though it has been widely used now. I used to use video camera with tapes, it took me hours to digitalize those tapes. I began to use a digital viedo camera only this quarter. I was amazed at the ease with which to download the recorded data into computer.
The article offers a nice overview of the possibilities offered via "digital convergence" for the qualitative researcher. The qualitative researcher is essentially involved in interpreting, analyzing and ‘objectifying’ social data. Generally speaking, qualitative research will not be skewed (any more than it already may be due to the subjective nature of research itself) through the computer/ technologically based applications. In fact, for observations and interview, ‘capturing’ , importing, storing, and cataloguing data through the use of digital video and audio recorders seems to be an invaluable asset with respect to efficiency and accessibility. I would also argue that improved qualitative research can be achieved due to the quality (enhancement) and the technological benefits through which such data is stored. Conversely, a caveat involves the promotion of an epistemologically “uniform mode of computer assisted data analysis” which may compromise qualitative research - but this is only if the researcher allows it to do so.
I particularly enjoyed the section on the digital research journal. Spending countless hours doing research would be made much easier with the aid of technology. Specifically,hypertext links can substantially reduce the time and energy required to conduct research. While the technologically may not be that intuitive today, advances in this field could be helpful in saving time. Also, journal writing can benefit from this type of program as well. Rather than constantly having to organize physical notes, links can be created for easy access. Finally, the use of a schema, or concept map, with hyperlinks seem quite beneficial for the researcher as well.
Literacy Lady Writes....
Digital tools will allow me to organize and plan my research from the very start. I really feel the need to have some handle on what technology will give me the most effective direction and organization to my study before I begin. I will use this course to make some decisions about what will be most effective for mixed methodologies of data collection, storage, analysis, creative research design, study participant activities, etc. The multiple digital tools for research will give me wide selection to consider “ power and ease of use.” (p. 4)
CAQDAS, digital research journal, Googlereader, citeulike, Refworks, endnotes, everything about video and audio, and online surveys.
The potential dangers arise from a study that is supposed to be ethnographic and you are too digitized. Then you intimidate your study group with all the bells and whistles of technology. Nevertheless, using transcription technology to capture an interview or videotaping has many positive aspects.
Similar to many other posts, I believe digital tools such as CAQDAS, will enable me to efficiently manage my data. Rather than worrying about accidentally deleting an audio taped interview, I can upload it to my computer and store it with such software. I am most interested in learning about the tools that will assist me in qualitative data analysis, specifically in the coding process.
The potential dangers of qualitative digital tools, especially as they get more sophisticated is losing the human side of the process. Reading a transcript is not the same as listening to an audio tape and hearing a person's intonation, tone, etc or watching a videotape of a person's or people's reactions. So a high reliance on digital tools can obscure the data analysis process.
I think the potential for hyperlinking and online research journals is so far at the tip of the iceberg phase- meaning that I think we can't yet predict and have not yet seen the fullness of its uses and implications. In the era of self-publishing on the web, it does however trouble "the institution" that seems to hold onto paper publishing with a privileged grip. Specifically in regard to this course, tools for qualitative research, I was wondering with the digitization of data how security issues present themselves freshly. In other words, if I record an interview via tape, and lock them in a drawer, someone has to break into my office and bust open the safe to get the data. However with digital data, all someone has to do is hack into my computer. I know we've talked about encryption in class, but still. How many people actually take this measure? Furthermore, if we store our files online as backup, and those are hacked, then what? I mean it happens to the banks and credit card companies...why not data?
Just a thought...
I hadn’t thought about the ways technology influences my reflexivity—nor about the importance of being proactive about my cultural and historical place. I also had never considered technology to be antithetical to good qualitative research, though after reading this article, I can recognize why some could be concerned. If we lose touch with the data with an over reliance on digitized coding or arranging of data, I do believe that something of the subjective reflexivity essential for quality research could be diminished. I like the fact that the author suggests that technology and qualitative research is a both/and, not an either/or. And, if we’re really honest, it’s a moot point. Technology isn’t going away, but this article is a call to awareness of both what it can do, and what it maybe shouldn’t do.
I think there is also an element of personal approach to the research: data collection, field notes, reflexive journal, transcription, coding, writing can all be deeply influenced by available technologies, but each researcher needs to remain aware of context and the most appropriate means for gathering and reporting good data. If a video camera will keep the participant from being candid, but a digital recorder is less obtrusive, then the best and most valid data will be found without the video. I like to make bread the same way I like to research—process is just as important (even when it’s complicated and messy) as the final product.
To me digital tools are another great avenue to open up access and thought to research. The issue raised in the article is the caution of not trying to get the computer to replace the thinking. What I was surprised by is I own a good number of the programs mentioned in the article I just never thought to use them in the ways described. I am fascinated by software dedicated to qualitative research but I understand the warning given in the article that these programs and can be too specialized and therefore make work harded i.e. having to organize a transcript in a special way. Ultimately I see digital tools as a way to help me work smarter but I don't expect the tools to do the work for me.
How will digital tools enhance your research?
I think many of the applications of cataloguing data files is appealing. I often wonder what the potential problems could be if you have collected data and computers crash or the files are irretrievable from your disk for some reason. This would be a nightmare for the research process, so having places to store files in spaces makes sense. I also like the idea of being able to categorize themes or topics from data collected digitally. The use of these types of programs that transcribe your data will be helpful toward saving time in the research process.
What digital tools are you most interested in learning?
I am most interested in learning and using the tools to categorize data from transcriptions – QST Nud*ist, Atlasti and others. Additionally, using the audio or video programs that transcribes your observations into usable texts is appealing.
What are the potential dangers of digital tools in qualitative research?
The potential danger I see is that technology becomes the accepted mode of investigation, instead of actually having someone code data manually to make sure the interpretation and meaning of what was said was actually what was said.
Final Comment:
Does the process of research become a simple, scroll, roll and click or will researchers actually have to do something manually to make the research come alive? I like the prospects of all the possibilities, however, there seems to be a place where there needs to be some balance between uses and applications of technology. At a school I taught at the IT guy shared this comment just when the technology wave was occurring: “Man (and woman) should control the technology and not allow the technology to control Man (woman too!)”. This is an interesting statement in light of the many applications and uses of technology in research and our everyday lives. Sometimes the uses of technology cause me to think about our society becoming a BRAVE NEW WORLD!
I am interested in Brown's discussion of hypertext, which contributes to qualitative research becoming "multimodal." As a future researcher interested in community action research projects, I am interested becoming more technologically savvy in hopes of training others.
However, I hope that new digital tools will not contribute to issues of inequity and access (the digital divide). Emerging question: How will institutions of higher education come to accept major projects and hypertext? Will we ever move toward multimodal dissertations and theses? How will hypertext and digital productions fall into the discussion of validity and legitimate knowledge?
One purpose of the digitization of qualitative research is to streamline the process of collecting and analyzing data. This data can sometimes be extremely sensitive to interpretation. For example, in conversation analysis, a digital recorder is most likely going to allow the researcher to be more aware to what the participants, as the primary analysts, are communicating. A digital recorder can capture, the turn completion units, repairs and the reaction to them without having to scribble down not only what is being said but the manner in which it is said. If quantitative researchers have programs like spss, why can't qualitative researchers reap the benefits of technology to make life just a little bit easier?
I plan to do textual analysis for my research so my data and data collection will be a little bit different from the ones mentioned in the article. However, I agree that digitalization will help in finding and storing data more easily then the old days. people have to be careful though that data might easily leak or lost if not supported by enough knowledge.
I am choosing to discuss the Brown’s article through the work of Shirley Brice Heath, whose seminal piece in literacy studies, Ways with Words, allows me to think about the ways digitization of data may benefit or limit the work of qualitative researchers. Heath returned to her research site in 1996, a little over a decade after she published, Ways with Words (1983). When she returned, she discovered many of her research participants had left the area in search for work outside of the Piedmonts (some of the mills had since closed forcing people to look for work elsewhere). Brown’s (2002) article made me recall Heath’s experience and think about how technology may have aided her in her follow up study. Brown discussed the possibility of conducting interviews via the web, or emailing research participants to gather data, which may have helped Heath in that she could have reached a greater number of participants from wherever her physical location was at the time. Technology has a way of transcending space and time, which becomes more complicated when a researcher physically has to visit a research site. There are only so many hours in the day and dollars in our research funds to allow for multiple visits to various locations.
What would Heath have lost? Heath alluded to the fact that the shift of jobs from the Piedmonts had already shifted her approach to ethnography. “The ethnographer of communication who lives by the research charge to participate in natural intertwining flows of language” (p. 372) was challenged because she her research participants were located in different settings. Similarly, technology challenges an ethnographer ability to do the very thing Heath describes, “participate in natual intertwining flows of language. Through digitization of data, Heath may have lost the context and sociocultural practices, which she so beautifully documented in her original publication.
We are at a point in history, it seems, where the digitizing of data is a seductive approach to conducting research. Digitizing data allows a researcher to more easily store, catalogue, and then revisit data, rather than utilizing the limited physical space of filing cabinets and shelving units. Technology also allows for greater flexibility and accessibility in qualitative research. On the other hand, digitizing data may prevent the researcher from fully realizing the context, culture and paralinguistic features of the physical and temporal space of the research site. It is important to keep these benefits and limitations in mind as a researcher in order to preserve the validity and richness of one’s data and to honor the lives and experiences of research participants.
Completing Brown's article reiterates two main ideas for me: 1.) I have a great deal to learn on the technological front and 2.) The sheer contextuality of qualitative research is humbling. As Brown's article is from 2002, and I am not a techno-wizard, I wonder how far we have come in the qualitative world in terms of technology. Just this summer a colleague and I wrote a chapter via Prezi, as we were submitting to a digital compilation. Wow! The sheer challenges the technology brought forward gave me pause: I know how to write a linear paper, I know how to create a presentation that is my background while I speak, yet creating a fully digitized, stand-alone piece full of audio and video links, still photos, text, jpeg images was absolutely difficult. I should have investigated more models, but at this point in my career (as a teacher and a novice researcher), I have not been exposed to much text on the digital front. It is because of my lack of exposure and Brown's call that the qualitative world embrace multimedia journal formats, that I wonder what I am missing. Are there multimedia journal formats from which I should be learning and following?
I am intrigued by the hypertexts and hope to see models and create my own as I embark on research opportunities this year. Additionally, the art of transcribing and taking field notes in a digitized manner with a socio-cultural, reflexive view needs my attention. For some reason, I have always understood qualitative work to be subjective, yet I did not consider the contextual and reflexive needs within transcription and field notes. As authors and researchers we continually make choices which are rooted in our theoretical frameworks and we are always representing truth, at least as we perceive it.
I would enjoy a conversation surrounding Brown's article and current updates--have we, in 2010, taken up the ideas broached in the article? Just how far have we come as a research community in 8 years? I want to ensure that I learn a variety of digital tools available to me as well as how to navigate them; however, I need to be cognizant of the delicate dance of representation and subjectivity. I need to stay aware of my contextual self and the human beings whom I am interested in studying, all the while representing them in a digital fashion which holds its own context.
After reading Brown's article on digital convergence and its influence on qualitative research, I feel that we have all this new technology resources but so far we have not used it efficiently.
Qualitative research requires the researcher to collect data in different ways; for example, as qualitative researchers, we need to observe alot, interview subjects, write journals etc...
Using multimedia for data collection, storage and presentation will no doubt help store data, analyze it, and present it in less time, only if we were doing it correctly.
I feel that I know how to use some of these technologies, without really knowing what they're called, but I still need to be trained, and to practice with these methods before I actually start collecting data for my research. So, overall, getting the proper information on efficient technology developments and how they can be used properly can enhance the process of qualitative research.
manal habbal
It is true, as the article says, that increasingly sophisticated technology has enabled “a significant minority” (p 2) to engage in qualitative research. Current technology enables one to carry a video recorder with mics, a camera and a digital-camera-and-voice-recorder-in a pen that allows easily digitized handwritten notes without costing a fortune or having an assistant to lug around heavy equipment. Besides accuracy and validity become much easier to achieve through these tools, research involving travel has become much easier as well, especially given the restraints on luggage allowed on flights these days.
The idea of digital convergence strikes a deep note with me personally as I live in Columbus Ohio, and consider skype interviews with participants in India I met with over the summer as a data gathering possibility.
On the downside, dependence or reliance on technology can be a tricky thing. Thinking proactively about digital convergence, I admit that there are times when I have zoned out, not hearing what my participants are saying in the now, because I am busy worrying if the recorder is still on, if the mic is working properly or how disruptive it would be if the battery ran out halfway through the interview/ focus group session!
On the topic of publishing work, while I personally love the ability to disseminate and access research easily, I am skeptical about the worth conferred on it by the very exclusive academic world, as the author notes. Also, writing in hypertexts, with digital links etc is fine when one is working with a digitally literate or digitally native audience with access to all the technology involved, but much of the world (especially my intended audience) is still a world away from such language and text or its navigation.
Still, as a relatively young researcher, I think its all terribly exciting and wonderful! I consider myself getting digitally converged- although the technology is but a tool for the researcher, using it is a mindset, that I feel is like a Gestalt moment, where I cannot quite imagine not using it.The writing of the moment though, is still all the analog, to use the semiotic reference of the term, although the interpretation of it might rely on the digital.
Well darn! There goes my fantasy of learning some whiz-bank super cool computer stuff that would make my dissertation fly by!
Seriously, though, this article does point out for me that while digital tools can offer some support for the research process, they cannot substitute for the rigorous process of analysis or for the human, ah-hah dimension that allows insight into our research as a process.
While I am looking forward to learning how to use the digital tools to organize my research, I am also apprehensive about how it will work being removed from some of the tactile, hands-on aspects of research. For me, markers and big paper are crucial tools as I draw out ideas and connections and include graphical symbols to help me think through an idea. Although I've been introduced to concept mapping software, I've never been drawn to it and have instead photographed or scanned my had-drawn maps to put into the computer. Admittedly, it is frustrating when they can't be easily modified, and presenting ideas three-dimensionally can be tough.
Also, size and space are very important features of my work environment. It may sound odd, but I have trouble "thinking" on a laptop. For this reason at home I connect my laptop to a 24" monitor and external keyboard. I feel less confined when I can have my documents appear really large or have four windows open at a time. Even so, there are still times where I want even more visual space within which to work. (I have actually contemplated getting a second monitor but that's a little overboard.)
In a qualitative research setting, it is these "qualities" of the thinking/working space that seem really relevant - the texture of paper, size of the monitor, ease of ink flow with markers. (I can't handle drying-out markers either, it's like the ideas don't flow as easily through them.) As a researcher in dance education, I am already very tuned in to the embodiment of learning. So, I am curious how I will adapt to the physical dimension of working with qualitative digital tools. I believe they have much to offer if we don't expect too much and keep a balanced perspective on the benefits and limitations.
One of the most comforting words in Brown's articles for me was the last name, Chenail. Ron Chenail is the editor of the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, the official journal of my profession as a couple and family therapist. I was aware that Ron was a proponent of qualitative research, but I didn't know that he was a "name" in qualitative research outside of our field. This encourages me, because as I look through all of the digital tools that could be used, I start to feel that these can't be used in my field, due to anonymity concerns. While most IRB's require you to keep participant data secure, when you are studying vulnerable populations (i.e. HIV+ persons, children, clinically depressed persons), it might be dangerous to incorporate video or images into your data collection. In addition, while I love the idea of a collaborative wiki, if I do my dissertation on HIV+ women, it is highly unlikely that they'll have the skills and resources to contribute to this. I would be interested to read more about incorporating digital qualitative techniques with "vulnerable," stigmatized or low-income populations.
Having read the article and been explained by the instructor I am really sure that the digital tool will help a lot on my collecting and analyzing data on social studies phenomena that are very complex and diverse. A bulk of data on interview, observation, background, pictures can be retrieved easily and and completely.
I found this article to be complementary to readings for the EDUPL800 class. In Professor Cilesiz' lecture, this week we read about observation and interviewing in Glesne's "Becoming Qualitative Researchers", and this chapter would slot right in. I am used to thinking about digital tools in terms of Qualtrics and Stata, so I look forward to exploring this course's set of tools.
~Jamie L.
As a graduate student who just turned 22 I oftentimes feel overwhelmed by the expertise and what seems to be more "professionalism" of a lot of other students within the graduate program. However, this article, somehow, helped to relieve me of some of that stress--it made me realize that a lot of professionalism in research is related to keeping the data in obtaining the essential qualitative data and putting it in an organized manner. The tools I learned in the first class were extremely helpful in just giving me the 'ah-ha' moment in terms of idea-storage. In my EPL 717 course, I had read the full C. Wright Mills article that was quoted in this article. I found the concept of having a "filing cabinet" of research ideas and documents that you can always return to whenever you need to very helpful. I think that this class will expand upon that and provide me with many of the tools I will need to move forward with my research,
The digital camcorder enhances my qualitative research skills because it helps me collect a large amount of data. Specifically, a camcorder provides me with high quality audio, video and images in one package. Also, it enables me to download all of the digital data quickly to my computer. Therefore, as Brown (2002) points out, I can save a lot of time, and I can store and catalogue the digital data in a database for later editing and analysis. For example, when I collected the data using a camcorder in the ESL observational classrooms, I could convert the data into a common user-friendly format like a QUICKTIME movie, and then I could analyze the data more detail watching it repeatedly. I think that using camcorders to collect the data is attractive and interesting in researching. However, highly developed digital tools and technology might raise concerns about ambiguity in qualitative research. Consequently, it is necessary for researchers to carry “the representational stage of the digitally converged qualitative process” (p.22).
I thought this piece was really interesting. I appreciated the author's emphasis on how digital tools, or "digital convergence" was more about an extension of previous practice/techniques, rather than an complete overhaul. That is, the author acknowledges that there are benefits to using manual, older computing technologies for collecting, storing, analyzing and representing data and distinct challenges to newer technologies, but that these new technologies should be considered as complementary---making the research process more flexible for a variety of researchers' skills and purposes and also more efficient. Personally, I think I'm most excited that these new technologies (once I learn how to use them) will save me a ton of time in organizing my data!
The author's discussion of capturing data was interesting to me because aside from the efficiency of not having to write and rewrite data from the field once at home in order to organize and analyze at a later point, he suggests that there are now tools that are discrete enough to have in the field with you (such as a small camcorder or a small handheld computer that allows you to record your interviews/observations/thoughts and then quickly upload them onto your computer. Also, these technologies are much more unobtrusive than previous technologies not simply because of their size, but because of their ability to allow the researcher to completely focus on the field/subjects/relationalities/context(s) and be able to revisit those moments later during analysis.
I also found the section on representing your work digitally especially intriguing (particularly the use of hypertext) because of its potential ability to better represent a multiplicity of interpretations--allowing the reader to see multiple forms of data and draw their own conclusions rather than taking the word of the knower/researcher--noting the collaborative nature of knowledge production. This is another benefit of doing work online--that work can be shared with others (both subjects and coworkers who can edit and give feedback). Simultaneously, a multimedia work allows, as the author states, the text to share "a co-presence with video clips, audio clips, and graphic images. This can be particularly powerful for conveying the authenticity of original data sources." That is, it may speak to the validity of the work, or a sort of triangulation of data!
Part of my concern with the digitizing of qualitative research, that the author fails to discuss, is the classist aspects of this whole discussion. Who's to say that all researchers have access to these digital tools or know how they function. Also in solely representing our work in cyberspace, it delimits who we want to read our work since not all people have access to the internet, or the multiliteracy skills to navigate our hypertext insertions.
At first glance, I strongly agreed with the need of digitalization in qualitative research. Although I did not start my research yet, I can imagine the tremendous amount of papers and tapes produced by interviews, journals, observations, and etc. The researcher not only transcribes those data but also pulls those data back and forth hundreds of times. That is a real time-consuming work, and I don’t believe that is a price for being a qualitative researcher. However, when the article came to the end, my thought was little shifted. Technology shorted the time of transcribing and recording data, but it still can’t be a human as we are. The fundamental questionnaire of qualitative research is to understand human beings in the socio-cultural context (I know this is a too simplified version of qualitative research). In this sense, I still feel that the current level of technologies cannot replace a position of researcher who keeps searching for the meaning making process over continually evolving and spontaneously floating relationships and discourses of human beings.
One more thing I’ve thought about was a price issue. As far as I know, the better tool is the more expensive. Hence, the more and the high-tech tools mean that I have to pay much. Even though I want to be beneficial of those time saving tools, if I cannot afford to purchase that software, nothing is worthiness. How we can democratize those tools.
As the author talks about the advantage of “digital convergence” in the article, digitalization opens new era of the ease of data management. In other words, it offers easy access for analyzing, storing and using in the future. I could perceive what he talks about through my own experience. I used digital voice recorder for interview, and this device was so facilitate recording, downloading the large digital data directly to my laptop and later search. The most strength is its easy direction so that even the novice users like me can use without much trouble. I have not used most of digital device and software, but I can say all of the qualitative digital tools expand the process of qualitative research.
Perhaps the most impressive and inextricable aspects of digital media are the lightening speed of its development, the vast information generated and the management thereof.
For years, quantitative researchers had the advantage of mechanical calculation and tabulation data systems The database revolutionized the latter. Now, the revolution has reached the qualitative researcher with multimedia database, recognition software and the accessibility of collaborative and creative media.
Of course, in the final analysis, it is the human that interprets the data--for both the quantitative and qualitative researcher.
As a digital immigrant or neophyte--at least in comparison to those who are born digital, I am overwhelmed, daunted, and absolutely fascinated with the tools at hand.
Oddly, however, it underscores my desire to stay much closer to my embodiment and my humanity.
I was interested in the notion of "digital convergence" and the subsequent after effect; what stays and what gets displaced? I also thought it was interesting that many of the QR software applications focus primarily on the frequency with which terms are visible in a text but lack an understanding of semiotics or language. Being a visual learner, I also am intrigued with the hypertext metaphor and its' relation to PM "cannons of non-linearity". Something I would like to know more is how to encrypt data as I am applying for my IRB.
Although I'm in a quantitatively biased field (Educational Psychology), qualitative research has great potential to help explain the how's and why's of the phenomena I study, as well as to check the accuracy of findings against real students and their lived experiences. A major problem, so to speak, with qualitative research is the time-consuming nature of transcription and coding. I'm excited to learn about digital tools that will enhance the efficiency of some of the more mundane tasks, freeing up time for deeper analysis. I only recently got a smart phone, but I'm looking forward to trying its recording abilities instead of having to rely on special software and hardware and using lack of access as an excuse to delay research. One potential danger of using digital tools in research is the speed and breadth with which data can spread unintentionally. Good encryption and password protection will be necessary to help protect the identities of interviewees. Another danger is data loss. Fortunately, it is becoming easier and easier to back up data. I recently installed dropbox on my work PC and home Mac laptop, and it's proving very useful already.
It is a good summary of digital tools in research, not only of qualitative research, but also of quantitative research. I benefit from the paper a lot such as using cataloguing in data management, using hypertext to keep data contextualized, integrating audio with still image in data presentation. The development of multimedia gives us the potential to manipulate data more effectively and as far as I am concerned, it can be applied to both qualitative data and quantitative data. It also poses the challenge for us to keep abreast with the latest technological development to apply it to our research.
By Theodoto
The author of this article cogently looks at the rise and development of technology and the ease of using it in research especially in qualitative research and the way it can lure qualitative reseachers in abandaning the traditional texts. According to the author, technology offers a great benefit to qualitative reseachers, however the qualitative reseachers should use it principally to enhance the qualitative but not as a means to an end. the author says that Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software has both advantages and disavantages. One of the disavantages is that it may interfere with the authenticity of the work.
Reading Brown's article left me a bit more excited about the ways in which I as a 21st C. researcher can think about carrying out and then representing my research that to the average person may be considered dry or boring. I am thinking specifically about his discussion of presentating one's research in multimedia formatted journals and the like. Although, I am rather scary when it comes to using new technologies, I could see myself getting excited about presenting my doctoral work in such a format. It would not only make the research itself more interesting, but it would also provide opportunities for research subjects to speak for themselves-be seen and heard.
Fortunately, there are scholars like those working on the DALN (at OSU) who see the value and the need for re-presenting academic research. Hopefully, this is becoming the trend.
In terms of this class, I would like to know more about the sorts of tools available that make the process of transcribing and/or analyzing data easier. And, of course, tools that allow researchers to present material in more enegage ways (here I'm thinking of tools like I-Movie, MovieMaker and the like).
I already mentioned that I am a technophobe and not just with learning new technologies; for me, it's also about losing my stuff due to viruses or with the wrong click of a button. So I would also like to know more about encryption.
Digital tools can enhance my research in a few different ways. The majority of the research that I have done has been fieldwork; primarily, this work has been done in the form of home visits to couples and families. Digital tools allow for an easy way to record family interactions in a natural setting. These tools have become advanced enough that they can be taken to a home for each visit rather than having a family come to a laboratory.
Two risks come to mind when dealing with digital tools. As we discussed in class, encryption and password protection is important to maintain confidentiality. Another risk is data storage. When data is stored electronically, it may be quickly erased by accident. Some researchers may be reluctant (or may not even think) to put in the necessary work to back up their data.
I think that this is a good review article of the different ways in which digital tools can be used by qualitative researchers at different stages in the research process - capturing, analyzing and representing data. A lot of the concerns that Brown describes are similar to the adoption curve of any new technology, with innovators and early adopters through late adopters and laggards (see Roger's Innovation Adoption Curve). But in particular, Brown does a good job of setting up the concerns more specific to qualitative researchers, especially the conflict between the potential for democritization and pluralization of qualitative research through digitization, and the concern that this will lead to too much standardization and orthodoxy. As he says, the key is to keep the "researcher as instrument" in the equation through reflexive practice at all stages. What let Brown's argument down, in my opinion, was his assumption that we need to preserve the "non-foundationalist paradigm" of qualitative research, as exemplified by Maxwell's (1996) qualities. To me, one of the strengths of qualitative methodology is that it has been able to adapt to diverse researchers and research settings, and that it is, like its practitioners and participants, situated. Why, then, is Brown so precious about protecting these characteristics of qualitative research that were developed prior to digital tools being implemented?
It is interesting to see how far we have come, and how far we can go with qualitative data. Like any progress, there will be criticism like the "orthodoxy" threat. So one has to be careful not to completely throw out traditional ways, because after all, the reader only sees what the researcher wants her/him to see. What I really like about these tools is the ease of "collaboration". In research the importance of validity checks is becoming obvious to me. So not only would I like to learn more about software to analyze (like NVivo), but also collaborate.
Scott Zollinger
Ed P&L 692.49: Angelone
Reading Blog
January 11, 2011
I do not completely understand but I like the idea of an interlinked series of hypertext documents that can be used to facilitate research journal writing with efficient archiving and retrieval of information. For me, it is very time consuming to take notes by hand and then have to transfer them to digital format – essentially taking the notes twice. Using a handheld device or audio recorder to collect my thoughts and being able to immediately link them back to the main journal seems like a much more efficient use of my time. I am very excited about the progress of voice recognition software and its potential to increase the speed with which audio recordings can be transcribed. My typing skills are very limited and advances in this area would certainly benefit my efficiency in collecting data. I think digital tools, if used correctly, have the ability to not only enhance qualitative research but also to provide encouragement for those reluctant to use and/or accept it with the same confidence as quantitative research. However, these tools must be incorporated in such a way as to ensure that the critical human element involved in conducting qualitative research is not lost in the technology.
I am hoping to use digital tool in my dissertation. I feel really drawn towards working with families impacted by cancer and there is not a lot of research done on the parent-child relationship when the parent is sick. I think in therapy it is dangerous to aimlessly try to figure out what is most helpful to the family; time gets wasted and the family gets frustrated. However, by giving them a camera and having them take a picture of what cancer means to them or what their family is like now or what does their family need from therapy, they are able to give the therapist immediate insight about what they need most from therapy. That allows the therapist to provide more specific interventions at a faster time period. I also think that posting the pictures on blogs will allow families who cannot access therapy to see what other families are going through and normalize their own experience-thereby lessening anxiety. For the reasons above, I am most interested in learning about interviewing, photography, and blogging. Despite the perks of digital tools, I think there are some drawbacks. I am a numbers person—I definitely like the exactness of quantitative research. It is difficult for me to come up with methodologies for the data I collect that provides support that journal editors approve of—which is so important for the beginning professional. If I didn’t need to publish it would not be as hazardous, but I do think that qualitative research is harder to publish, and definitely more difficult to publish in higher impact journals. Regardless, it has become something I am passionate about it, so I have to give it a shot!
I'm not sure I understand the view that digitizing data and data analysis necessarily leaves "qualitative"-ness behind. I guess if you get right down to it, all the information is represented as signals which are interpreted as 0's and 1's so, maybe, Oops! We accidentally transformed our data to numbers? If any method of data collection or analysis necessarily privileges some representations/interpretations and precludes others, then CASDAQ software is no different (think of all the lovely things we can now do with it that we couldn't do without). I am anxious to learn to use this software to help me become more efficient in answering my questions and also in realizing when a question was ill-posed. Think of all the studies you could do, even in the short-tenured life of a graduate student.
I don't agree that "human-ness" is lost through digital analysis (at least not moreso than through other methodologies). Afterall, the anthropologists of the 1800s stripped their subjects of all humanity (eg, casting them as savages, the Hottentot Venus) in order to justify their role as subjects of investigation.
I think what prompted this response is the "non-foundationalist paradigm" bit (which I see caught the eye of another classmate). I think it's futile to think that any cohesive paradigm could be "non-foundationalist" and I think that the author of that statement is deliberately setting up an us-them dichotomy based on what *his* perception of the "qualitative paradigm" is. Very presumptious.
I found this article interesting overall. I do pretty much everything with my computer and am always looking for ways to make technology work more efficiently for me. I found this piece useful in that it questions and reasons through procedures that I would never think twice about. It is good to periodically examine our methods to determine what we are gaining or sacrificing with the choices we make.
One issue that I have in relation to digital tools is choice. Someone could spend hours testing different tools and software packages and still not find something that works exactly correctly - take statistical packages for example, each has strengths and weaknesses and it can feel paralyzing to make a choice. That being said, I am interested in learning how to use "ideal" software for content analysis - a method I have used and will continue to use in the future.
One of the greatest advantages that I can see in having digital tools available for qualitative research is the ability to present the authentic voices of research participants. Instead of having to rely on handwritten (or even typed) notes to capture a participant’s words, I can collect audio and video samples that I can both analyze later or even share as part of my scholarship. I do, however, worry about the complications that come with taking audio and video recordings of participants. For example, some participants may not understand that the collected A/V data (in most cases) is for analysis only, and they may fear that the recordings will be shared in a way that would harm them or relationships with others.
Another concern for me is how to organize and catalogue the massive amounts of data that I am currently collecting. Field notes, while time consuming, are fairly easily filed and backed up. Audio and video take up lots of computer memory and can become a jumble of unlabeled files if I get behind on sorting through and filing data.
Right now my conception of digital tools is rather narrow—focusing on video and audio data that I gather as I research in the field, but I also appreciate how various tools provide ease-of-sharing and collaboration with colleagues, although I still worry about storing sensitive data online, even to collaborate or back up files. I enjoy exploring new digital tools, and sometimes I find myself spending more time than I should learning how a program works and how I can make it work for me. Mainly, digital tools are tools and, as I see myself using them, not a threat to qualitative research. For me qualitative research is a frame of mind, a way of defining a problem and thinking of ways to find answers. Digital tools can provide new ways for us to explore issues, collect data, and share our conclusions.
I think that the available digital tools will be incredibly useful when getting all sorts of different media together. It seems exciting to me to think about having all of my research regardless of the media type in one place, and above that, organized in some manner. I think that this would be something that would allow a researchers research life to be easier but i think that technology can best us all to easily. I think that learning new technology can be time consuming and at times extremely frusterating.
I have absolutely no background in research let alone qualitative research and I think that I will be excited and willing to learn any of the available technologies. I've heard a great deal about endnotes, and I am interested in using this software most.
I think that using digial research tools can be very dangerous as it leaves people open to violation of confidentiality with thier knowledge. It is "easy" to check to make sure that written notes are kept secure, locked in a cabinet or drawer of some kind. Digital tools appear to be tricky and I think they require teaching before offical use, because individuals may be violating IRB protocols and not even be aware of it
The article appears to make the argument that technology can be a very useful tool for qualitative work, but at the same time cautions about the fluid nature of technology itself. It is hard to argue that many tools have made qualitative (and quantitative) work more accessible, and perhaps more in-depth due to the capacity for storage of data, however, the drawbacks are evident as the article points out. It is difficult to predict elements of technology that will flourish and be more useful, but the article attempts to do so, with some miscues. I believe the main concept I took from this reading was the idea that there are wonderful attributes of qualitative research thanks to technology, but issues remain in spite of those advances, and likely this dichotomy will remain as long as we use technology.
In discussing the article, and commenting on how outdated it was (2002), I failed to discuss how I thought that I would use tech-tools in qualitative research, and I what I hope to learn from this course. I am excited to learn how bloggers and other web-based tools, and how they can improve my journaling and organization of research materials collected and sharing those same materials with research partners and mentors. I am also looking forward to learning tech-techniques for transcribing interviews, presentations, and video data.
A couple quick thoughts- it's sort of amusing to see HTML advocated for as how to present papers. I did an html paper in 2000 which does do the multimedia incorporation pretty well but it just isn't respected in the scholarly world and since has been made more complicated by css. The author additionally seems rather naive about the capabilities of OCR and voice recognition. I've only used OCR and it only works on the clearest typed documents and even then requires additional work but I've heard stories about how long it takes to set up voice recognition. In any case, there are always pros and cons to any media but it is this fact that makes them not only fascinating but useful in that they each do different things. I think my view as to the overall concern about computers as potentially less qualitative is that is just another case for triangulation, which is already a standard component of research validity. I also wonder about what has happened in the last ten years that the author would have included. I think that in some ways wikis have overtaken his enthusiasm for html.
I don't think that posted, so here's trying it again
A couple quick thoughts- it's sort of amusing to see HTML advocated for as how to present papers. I did an html paper in 2000 which does do the multimedia incorporation pretty well but it just isn't respected in the scholarly world and since has been made more complicated by css. The author additionally seems rather naive about the capabilities of OCR and voice recognition. I've only used OCR and it only works on the clearest typed documents and even then requires additional work but I've heard stories about how long it takes to set up voice recognition. In any case, there are always pros and cons to any media but it is this fact that makes them not only fascinating but useful in that they each do different things. I think my view as to the overall concern about computers as potentially less qualitative is that is just another case for triangulation, which is already a standard component of research validity. I also wonder about what has happened in the last ten years that the author would have included. I think that in some ways wikis have overtaken his enthusiasm for html.
Many of my research interests lie in the areas of online culture and online counseling, so I foresee digital tools having significant impact on my research. One area I hadn't considered they might impact before reading the article is in the presentation of research; I think the author tantalizes us with the possibilities of hypertexted articles which allow a whole new organizational structure for readers and fellow researchers (one thing that immediately occurred to me; what if your in-text cites linked directly to the article you were referring to, allowing for the understanding of the topic to be expanded for the reader as they read). I'm very interested in learning the data collection tools even more than the analysis tools; I admit that as much of a technophile as I am, I am more comfortable with using digital tools to collect data, rather than to analyze it. I also think that there's a certain amount of danger - particularly to the confidentiality of our research data - in digitizing ourselves; with the recent push to 'cloud' computing and storage, we have to be careful that we know where our data is stored, and who really has access to it.
As a musician, I am smitten with the notion of multimedia presentation of research. It is difficult to quantify a musical performance, particularly when it comes down to subjective, artistic nuances. Perhaps more so in the quantitative realm, it would be most helpful to be able to click a link to a video or audio recording of a participant performing a given task. Rather than depending on the lexicon of the researcher, the reader can hear for him or herself the impact of a given condition.
I also expect to use technology to aid in the manipulation of digital files for transcription. Currently, I am using ExpressScribe to help slow down the tempo of audio recordings—without altering the voice pitch level—allowing for recognizable and manageable speech. This program, a freebie, has been quite helpful, but I am certainly open to other, even better programs that may be out there. Additionally, I anticipate using online communication mediums like Skype to keep in touch with participants, especially for longitudinal studies where participants may move across the country and beyond. I am not familiar with recording capabilities for Skype, but I look forward to learning more.
Mostly, I am interested in learning how to create hypertext documents. Brown makes a convincing case for the use of hypertexts, and I can envision using that technology for the presentation of data, organizing my own research journals, and cataloging my own reviews of literature and data collection. I am somewhat familiar with using hypertexts in MS powerpoint (web links, video and audio files, etc.); however, I have never attempted it in other programs.
Of course, there is risk involved for using digital tools in qualitative research. Through my lens, the most obvious seems to be relying too heavily on programs like voice recognition software. Anyone who has played around with such programs has experienced the multiple inaccuracies that can occur if one is not careful.
It is also important to keep in mind that technology is constantly changing. It appears that the compatibility issues of just a few years ago are starting to improve, but that does not mean that a program that worked last month will still be desirable next month. It is entirely possible to rely on a technology that is a fad. It may fall out of favor quickly, not accepted in one’s field, or may even become obsolete in a short period of time. Some programs may manipulate data too much, pushing research into the quantitative field. When using technology, it is imperative that we keep in mind the human element to qualitative research.
Lastly, there are some major confidentiality issues that are brought to light when it comes to enhancing one’s research with audio and visual files. If it is possible to click on a link to hear a participant speak, it is also possible that someone may recognize her voice. As Brown mentioned, voices can be altered to help maintain confidentiality, but what happens to those media files once they are shared on the web? Is it possible for voices to become unaltered? What about smudges on video files? I am not a technology guru by any means, but, until I can feel confident that my participants are truly anonymous, I doubt I will be taking advantage of this format any time soon.
As someone who is comfortable in the digital age, but not confident enough to teach a course like this, I cannot help but wonder how much has changed since Brown wrote this article? It has been nine years; so much has developed since just nine months ago. Is html still worth examining? How are multimedia sources being used today in research? Will online journals start being more widely accepted in academia? Is there any way to anticipate my own digital future in qualitative research?
As I read this article, I began to think about how digital tools could enhance my research. As a qualitative researcher, I am particularly interested in the voices of my research participants and the concept of storytelling and narratives. Therefore, I intend to conduct one on one interviews and record these interviews using a digital recorder. Brown (2002) states that, “[a]nalysis effectively begins by listening to, transcribing, reading and coding the recoded interviews and observational data. The transcription process is fundamental in getting close to the data and provides immediate feedback on the effectiveness of the type of questions and the quality of data recovered” (p. 9). After reading Brown’s statement, I was reminded of the importance of transcription. As a result, the digital tools that I am most interested in learning about are transcription software.
In addition, he claims that, “[t]here are a number of software transcription applications on the market. The researcher simply imports the desired audio/video file into the transcription application and begins transcribing using keystrokes to instruct the recording to start, stop, go back, and so on. The final transcribed interview is then saved as a word processor file, stored and catalogued. Alternatively, the data can be transcribed using a voice recognition software application, where the audio file is opened, listened to, and then spoken into a text document by the researcher” (p. 10). I found Brown’s discussion regarding the voice recognition software interesting. I would also like to learn more about this type of software.
Making decisions about CAQDAS at the beginning of data collection will help me to be organized and start "coding"/filing information in a way that makes it easier to retrieve and use (sometimes much later in the process). Newer technology can aid in re-living a field experience, but there is a real fear of being able to adequately protect research subjects. If I choose a specifically-designed software for analysis, I must be aware of the techniques of the software designer, and not allow the program to dictate how I conduct research, potentially influencing my results.
I love the idea of being able to attach audio and video files to my research (and the depth and richness of meaning it can add), but that means submitting my finished product in a form other than a paper hard-copy, and I am not convinced this is yet an acceptable format in the minds of some doctoral committees.
I will most likely use digital tools in the early stages of my research, for data collection, editing and storing, transcribing interviews, and for journaling my thoughts. I may consider a final product in a mixed-media format: submitting a CD/DVD of audio/video clips with the hard copy. This may help alleviate any concerns I have about intellectual copyright.
Submitting a final project in a hyper-text and audio/visual-rich format is an exciting prospect, but it is only useful if it is going to be read and accepted as a legitimate form of research, whether quantitaive OR qualitative.
Although this article discussed about how digital tools could be used in doing qualitative research, I was thinking how digital tools could help me do mix-method research, which is to utilize quantitative and qualitative research methods, when reading the article. For quantitative data collection, I think an online survey tool could allow me to reach more possible participants and to make the process of collecting data much easier than collecting data in an actual research site. Next, I could use colleted data to run a statistic program and then obtain statistic data. For qualitative data collection, I think an audio recorder or/and a video camera would be good tools when doing observations and interviews. Using an audio recorder or/and a video camera could compensate for the disadvantage of taking a field note. However, as Brown (2002) said that digital tools are not panaceas. There are some drawbacks of using digital tools to collect data or to present a paper. First, data collection through an online survey tool is to limit participants who should know how to use computers and an online survey tool. Thus, the data will have a bias. Second, most professors and educators in humanities departments are not familiar with digital tools and formats of papers. Hence, researchers who want to use digital formats to present paper may have difficulties to be accepted and approved.
I enjoyed reading this article. I believe that when new technology is introduced into a discipline there will be some a group of "purists" who will be reluctant to accept the benefits of that the new technology can bring to their field. I was excited to learn more about the databases that I can utilize for my research on students in higher education. It will be a great to catalog my interviews, which I plan to record with a digital camera. In an article I read, "Beyond the Fetishism of Words", the author discussed the value of knowing the meaning behind the words of the person interviewed. I cannot think of a better way to do this than to use video recording equipment. I also understand as the article in the blog states, that discernment is needed to know when technology can have a negative impact on research. But I think overall there are tremendous benefits that new technology can have on qualitative research. I look forward to one day having the use of spy technology, like mini recording devices that I can use to interview and observe, of course with informed consent.
My reading of this essay became an entertaining game of cat and mouse. Each section of the writing caused me to think "but what about..." and immediately the next sentence offered a digitally possible answer. What that says to me is that I have a great deal to learn. I believe I have a romanticized notion of gathering rich data, analyzing and interpreting meaningful elements, and visually, as well as textually, representing insights derived from that data. That notion is absent real experience. The real work of gathering, storing, analyzing and representing qualitative data is vast. This article provides some validity for the use of efficient tools to manage that overwhelm. The most powerful insight I will retain from the reading is that the responsibility for managing the tools lies with the researcher. One needs to be cognizant of the potential skewing, overquantifying, simplification of data and use the technology to avoid those dangers. As with developing insights and theory, the technology continues to evolve and improve to meet the needs of the researcher.
I began reading this article expecting the same argument that I have heard over and over when this topic comes up among qualitative researchers - this type of argument typically portrays very extreme views of the utility of technological resources in qualitative research. Yet, the focus of these discussions usually surround digital tools for analysis. What I was pleasantly surprised to find as I was reading the article was that digital tools can be used at every stage of qualitative research, from conceptualization of the question to presenting or archiving the data. When the author mentioned the use of a tape recorder and word processors as digital, I found myself thinking how amazing it is that I take for granted the digital tools that are at my disposal and that I didn't see using a tape recorder or word processor as a technogical advance for qualitative research. After reading this article, though, it became clear that qualitative researchers have a plethora of resources for moving thier research forward in a world where digitalization is primarily preferred and viewed by many as related to more rigorous research.
There is a danger in using digital tools in qualitative research, but I think there are also dangers in using digital tools for quantitative projects (e.g. fishing for statistical findings). It is important to have a clear understanding about one's purpose for using the tool and realizing that research still must include a human component. Specifically for qualitative research, it seems important for the researcher to be clear about thier epistemology, purpose of the research, and the strengths and weaknesses of the tools they plan to use.
Despite this danger, I agree that qualitative research can be enhanced by the use of digital tools. I plan to conduct a qualitative project for my dissertation and will definitely record my interviews, use a transcription device for transcribing the interviews, and use a qualitative software program (possbily NVIVO) to organize my data. However, I would like to learn about a variety of other tools that can be used throughout different stages of my project as I am not familiar with most tools that are available.
Apparently my first post got lost, so here's a second take on this. At the basic level, certain digital tools will assuredly help in my research: digital audio/video recordings, transcription software, and CAQDAS all have a place in my research plans. In my desire to capture and recreate moments of interaction, having such tools to assist me will be invaluable. As such, I look forward to learning about their functionality and the different styles of each piece of software and hardware throughout the course.
My concern with extensive digital tool usage lays with security. Not every institution's IRB is comfortable with digital security (encryption, etc.), so I must be mindful of this. Also, while digital storage allows for greater redundancy of information, having information stored in multiple places means being mindful of security precautions. How can I be reasonably certain that the confidentiality of any documents is maintained?
there is no doubt that virtually every field has gone technological. Having qualitative research digitized is a big leap forward. Personally I find this new technology very magical in solving some salient problems that the era ago experienced. having said that, I do point out that the field is still growing and therefore more appropriate technologies are in the offing, I guess. I therefore find this article incisive in comparing the olden research mechanisms and the modern ways of research that employ technologies. the contrasts actually opens the lid of is happening in the field of research.
Post a Comment