I'm really happy to see that the talks from the University of Surrey CAQDAS 2014 are now up online (that's 'Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software' to you and me). It was a great conference about the current state of software for qualitative analysis, but for me the most interesting talks were from experienced software trainers, about how people actually were using packages in practice.
There were many important findings being shared, but for me one of the most striking was that people spend most of their time coding, and most of what they are coding is text.
In a small survey of CAQDAS users from a qualitative research network in Poland, Haratyk and Kordasiewicz found that 97% of users were coding text, while only 28% were coding images, and 23% directly coding audio. In many ways, the low numbers of people using images and audio are not surprising, but it is a shame. Text is a lot quicker to skip though to find passages compared to audio, and most people (especially researchers) and read a lot faster than people speak. At the moment, most of the software available for qualitative analysis struggles to match audio with meaning, either by syncing up transcripts, or through automatic transcription to help people understand what someone is saying.
Most qualitative researchers use audio as an intermediary stage, to create a recording of a research event, such as in interview or focus group, and have the text typed up word-for-word to analyse. But with this approach you risk losing all of the nuance that we are attuned to hear in the spoken word, emphasis, emotion, sarcasm – and these can subtly or completely transform the meaning of the text. However, since audio is usually much more laborious to work with, I can understand why 97% of people code with text. Still, I always try to keep the audio of an interview close to hand when coding, so that I can listen to any interesting or ambiguous sections, and make sure I am interpreting them fairly.
Since coding text is what most people spend most of their time doing, we spent a lot of time making the text coding process in Quirkos was as good as it could be. We certainly plan to add audio capabilities in the future, but this needs to be carefully done to make sure it connects closely with the text, but can be coded and retrieved as easily as possible.
But the main focus of the talk was the gaps in users' theoretical knowledge, that the survey revealed. For example, when asked which analytical framework the researchers used, only 23% described their approach as Grounded Theory. However, when the Grounded Theory approach was described in more detail, 61% of respondents recognised this method as being how they worked. You may recall from the previous top-up, bottom-down blog article that Grounded Theory is essentially finding themes from the text as they appear, rather than having a pre-defined list of what a researcher is looking for. An excellent and detailed overview can be found here.
Did a third of people in this sample really not know what analytical approach they were using? Of course it could be simply that they know it by another name, Emergent Coding for example, or as Dey (1999) laments, there may be “as many versions of grounded theory as there were grounded theorists”.
Finally, the study noted users comments on advantages and disadvantages with current software packages. People found that CAQDAS software helped them analyse text faster, and manage lots of different sources. But they also mentioned a difficult learning curve, and licence costs that were more than the monthly salary of a PhD student in Poland. Hopefully Quirkos will be able to help on both of these points...