History of CAQDAS

Origins Text analysis

General Inquirer (content analysis)

Word processors and desktop computers 1984 onwards

Dedicated programs - Code-and-retrieve The Ethnograph Hypersoft

Code-and-retrieve Coding - mark text with code Code list Retrieve - show all text coded the same way.

Some complex retrievals - text coded with two codes.

Command line vs WIMP Command line e.g. ‘Moveto 4,41’

Complaints Hard to use Remote from data

WIMP = Windows, icon, menu, pointer.

Made use much easier

Current best selling programs NVivo Atlas.ti MAXQDA HyperRESEARCH QDAMiner But still small companies cf. Microsoft. NVivo sold 400,000, vs Millions for Office

New functions – Theory Building Memos Search (text and codes) Charts Link with quants data Textual analysis tools Relations Word and pdf documents Images, video and audio GIS

Debates about CAQDAS Distant from data Too easy to move to quantify Dominance of code and retrieve

Vs narrative thread Vs postmodern variation

Fragmentation and decontextualisation Coding loses interaction in focus groups

Needs time and resources to learn

Advantage of CAQDAS Faster and more efficient Helps explanations (eg. Use face sheet data)

Supports transparency Code trees encourage looking at connections

Avoids anecdotalism - can check frequency

Key functions Input rtf/doc/pdf and display Code schemes – some hierarchical

Retrieval Examine coded text Memoing Diagrams