Qualitative Articles

Please add alphabetized entries and annotations to this bibliography.
  • Britten, N. (1995). Qualitative research: Qualitative interviews in medical research. British Medical Journal, 311, 251-253. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/311/6999/251 Provides an outline of qualitative interview techniques and their application in healthcare settings.
  • Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). 'Clear as mud': Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2). Article 1. http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_2/pdf/caellietal.pdf Discusses qualitative research in a manner that is easily understandable.
  • Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Strategies of qualitative research – 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 203-241.
  • Chiovitti, R.F., & Pivan, N. (2003). Rigour and grounded theory research. Journal of Advances in Nursing 44(4), 427-435.
  • Cooney, A. (2011). Rigour and grounded theory. Nurse Researcher 18(4), 17-22.
  • Devers, K.J. (1999). How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Services Research, 34(Part II), 1153-1188.
  • Dye, J.F., Schatz, I.M., Rosenberg, B.A., & Coleman, S.T. (1998). Constant comparison method: A kaleidoscope of data. The Qualitative Report, 4(1/2). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-1/dye.html This paper illustrates the use of a kaleidoscope metaphor as a template for the organization and analysis of qualitative research data. It provides a brief overview of the constant comparison method, examining such processes as categorization, comparison, inductive analysis, and refinement of data bits and categories. Graphic representations of their metaphoric kaleidoscope are strategically interspersed throughout this paper. It is an interesting presentation of thoughts and use of the kaleidoscope as a metaphor.
  • Gasson, S. (2003). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In M. Whitman & A. Woszczynski (eds.), Handbook for information systems research. Hershey, PA, US: Idea Group, pp. 79-102.
  • Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597-607. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf Discusses the author's refinement of the positivist terms "reliability and validity" to be appropriate for qualitative research. He draws on many sources, including Patton, for his article.
  • Gregory, D.M., Russell, C.K., & Phillips, L.R. (1997). Beyond textual perfection: Transcribers as vulnerable persons. Qualitative Health Research, 7, 294-300.
  • Hall, W., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. (2), 257-272.
  • Harding, G., & Gantley, M. (1998). Qualitative methods: Beyond the cookbook. Family Practice, 15, 76-79. http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/1/76?ijkey=c605bf27aa660cc381803323c58434f162bd9d47 Discussion of qualitative health services research; distinction between problem-oriented and theory-oriented research; illustration of the benefit of introducing theoretical perspectives to develop the knowledge base of health services research (versus merely using a cookbook approach to methods selection).
  • Harris, J. (1997). Surviving ethnography: Coping with isolation, violence and anger. The Qualitative Report, 3(1). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-1/harris.html This "article" concentrates upon the intensities of emotion experienced by a novice ethnographer. The argument is that acknowledging the emotional impact of events in the field enables the ethnographer to analyze reflexively the differences between the value of the self and those of the Other. Seeing beyond the emotions generated at times of crisis can permit and facilitate an analysis of the everyday social relations between participants. Dealing with the personal impact of these emotions is an entirely different matter; very few others (supervisors, academics, peers) although well-intentioned, will appreciate the depths of these emotions and the problems that they produce for an individual ethnographer. The argument is illustrated by reflexive field notes, experiences and poetry from the author's ethnographic study of British Deaf people.
  • Jones, K. (2004) “Mission Drift in Qualitative Research, or Moving toward a systematic review of qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review”, The Qualitative Report, 9, 1, March 2004. Available at: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR9-1/jones.pdf . The paper argues that the systematic review of qualitative research is best served by reliance upon qualitative methods themselves. A case is made for strengthening the narrative literature review and using narrative itself as a method of review. A technique is proposed that builds upon recent developments in qualitative systematic review by the use of a narrative inductive method of analysis.
  • Kelle, U. (2007). The development of categories: Different approaches in grounded theory. In Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.(eds.), . Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007, 191-213.
  • Loutzenheiser, L. W. (2007). Working alterity: The impossibility of ethical research with youth Educational Studies, 41(2), 108-127.
  • Morse, J., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), Article 2. http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/1_2Final/pdf/morseetal.pdf These authors call for using strategies within one's research that will enable studies to have rigor built within them, versus having a post-application of criteria once the study is completed.
  • Opdenakker, Raymond (2006, August). Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Interview Techniques in Qualitative Research [44 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 7(4), Art. 11. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/4-06/06-4-11-e.htm
  • Reichertz, J. (2010). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 11(1), Art 13.
  • Russell, C.K., & Gregory, D.M. (2003). EBN Users' Guide: Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence-based Nursing, 6, 36-40. http://ebn.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/6/2/36
  • Russell, C.K., & Gregory, D.M. (1993). Issues for consideration when choosing a qualitative data management system. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1806-1816.
  • Russell, C.K., Gregory, D.M., & Gates, M.F. (1996). Aesthetics and substance in qualitative research posters. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 542-552.
  • Wilson, W.J. (2002). Expanding the domain of policy-relevant scholarship in the social sciences. Political Science & Politics, March 2002. http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/ExpandingtheDomain-Wilson.pdf An interesting article by William Julius Wilson, from Harvard University, that addresses expanding the domain of policy-relevant scholarship in the social sciences. It contains a nice discussion about the context of discovery and of justification/validation, particularly considering qualitative approaches.
  • Zeller, N. & Farmer, F. (1999)."Catchy, clever titles are not acceptable'': Style, APA, and qualitative reporting. International Journal for Qualitative Studies in Education, Volume 12, 1, January, 1999, pp. 3-19. Examines the epistemological implications of APA style, reminding readers that stylistic choices are always implicated in the decisions we make about how to know and understand our world. Article is a "call for qualitative researchers to develop their own style guidelines- ones more fitting to qualitative assumptions about knowledge, ones more reflective of the actual practices of qualitative researchers".



Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) Bibliography

Broad Discussion: Advantages and disadvantages; issues and potentials of using CAQDAS
  • Bassett, R. (2004). Qualitative data analysis software: Addressing the debates. Journal of Management Systems, XVI(4), 33-39.
  • Brent, E. (1984). Qualitative computing: Approaches and issues. Qualitative Sociology, 7(1/2), 34-27.
  • Buston, K. (1997). NUD*IST in Action: Its use and usefulness in a study of chronic illness in young people. Sociological Research Online, 2(3), 1-15.
  • Durkin, T. (1997). Using computers in strategic qualitative research. In Miller, G. & Dingwall, R. (Eds.), Context and method in qualitative research (pp. 92-105). London: Sage.
  • Conrad, P., & Reinharz, S. (1984). Computers and qualitative data: Editor’s introductory essay. Qualitative Sociology, 7(1/2), 3-13.
  • Fielding, N. (2002). Automating the ineffable: Qualitative software and the meaning of qualitative research. In Tim May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 161-178). London: Sage.
  • Fielding, N. (1993). Analysing qualitative data by computer. Social Research Update, 1. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU1.html
  • Gerson, E. M. (1984). Qualitative research and the computer. Qualitative Sociology, 7(1/2), 61-14p.
  • Gibbs, G. R., Friese, S. & Mangabeira, W. C. (2002). The use of new technology in qualitative research. Introduction to Issue 3(2) of FQS. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02hrfsg-e.htm
  • Gilbert, L. (2002). Going the distance: “Closeness” in qualitative data analysis software. In Special Issue of The International Journal of Social Research Methodology 5(3), 215-228.
  • Hinchliffe, S.J., Crang, M.A., Reimer, S.M. & Hudson, A.C. (1997). Software for qualitative research: 2. Some thoughts on ‘aiding’ analysis. Environment and Planning A, 29, 1109-1124.
  • Kaczynski, D. (2004). Examining the Impact of Qualitative Data Analysis Software upon the Analysis Process. Paper presented at the AARE International Education Research Conference, Melbourne.
  • Kelle, U. (2004). Computer-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, and D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 473-489). London: Sage.
  • Kent, R. A. (2001, April). Computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS): Reflections on its use in management education. Paper presented at the Business Education Support Team (BEST) Annual Conference, Windemere, Lake District.
  • Lee, R. M. & Fielding, N. G. (1991). Computing for qualitative research: Options, problems and potential. In N. G. Fielding & R. M. Lee (Eds.), Using computers in qualitative research (pp. 1-13). London: Sage.
  • Lu, C.J & Shulman, S.W. (2008). Rigor and Flexibility in Computer-based Qualitative Research: Introducing the Coding Analysis Toolkit, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches Vol. 2, No. 1 (2008), 105-117.
  • Mangabeira, W. C., Lee, R. & Fielding, N. (2004). Computers and qualitative research: Adoption, use and representation. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 167-178.
  • Mangabeira, W. C. (1996). CAQDAS and its diffusion across four countries: National specificities and common themes. Current Sociology, 44(3), 191-205.
  • Matthew, B. M. & Weitzman, E. A. (1996). The state of qualitative data analysis software: What do we need? Current Sociology, 44, 206-224.
  • Muhr, T. (1991). ATLAS/ti: A Prototype for the support of text interpretation. Qualitative Sociology, 14 (4), 349-371.
  • Murphy, J.W., & Pardeck, J.T. (1991). The computerization of human services agencies. New York: Auburn House.
  • Ragin, C.C., & Becker, H.S. (1989). How the microcomputer is changing our analytical habits. In G. Blank, J.L. McCartney & E. Brent (Eds.), New technology in sociology (pp. 47-55). New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  • Richards, L. (1998). Closeness to data: The changing goals of qualitative data handling. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), pp. 319-328.
  • Richards, L. & Richards, T. (1991a). The transformation of qualitative method: Computational paradigms and research processes. In N. G. Fielding, & R. M. Lee (Eds.), Using Computers in Qualitative Research (pp.38-53). London: Sage.
  • Richards, T., & Richards, L. (1991b). The NUD*IST qualitative data analysis system. Qualitative Sociology, 14 (4), 307-324.
  • Richards, L. & Richards, T. J. (1991c). Computing in qualitative analysis: A healthy development? Qualitative Health Research, 1 (2), 234-262.
  • St John, W. & Johnson, P. (2000). The pros and cons of data analysis software for qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32(4), 393-397.
  • Tallerico, M. (1992). Computer Technology for Qualitative Research: Hope and Humbug. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(2), 32-40.
  • Tallerico, M. (1991). Applications of Qualitative Analysis Software: A View from the Field. Qualitative Sociology, 14(3), 275-285.
  • Tesch, R. (1991a). Introduction. Qualitative Sociology, 14(3), 225-243.
  • Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02welsh-e.htm

Positive Views
  • Bolden, R., & Moscarola, J. (2000). Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide: The lexical approach to textual data analysis. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 450-460.
  • Brown, D. (2002). Going digital and staying qualitative: Some alternative strategies for digitizing the qualitative research process. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02brown-e.htm
  • Drass, K.A. (1980). The Analysis of Qualitative Data: A Computer Program. Urban Life, 9(3), 332-353.
  • Lee, R. M., & Fielding, N. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: Representations of a technology: A comment on Coffey, Holbrook and Atkinson. Sociological Research Online, 1(4). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/1/1/4.html
  • O'Flaherty B. & Whalley J. (2004). Qualitative analysis software applied to IS Research: Developing a coding strategy. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Turku, Finland. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20040128.pdf
  • Richards, L. (1995). Transition work! Reflections on a three-year NUD.IST Project. In Burgess, R. G. (Ed.), Studies in Qualitative Methodology: Computing and Qualitative Research: Volume 5 (pp.105). London: JAI Press.
  • Richards, L. and Richards, T. J. (1987). Qualitative data analysis: Can computers do it? Australia and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 23, 23-35.
  • Richards, T. and Richards, L. (1991d). Creativity in social sciences: The computer enhancement of qualitative data analysis. In T. Dartnall (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence and Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 365-383). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Smith, B.A., & Hesse-Biber, S. (1996). User’s experiences with qualitative data analysis software: Neither Frankenstein's monster nor Muse. Social Science Computer Review, 14(4), 423-432.
  • Tesch, R. (1989). Computer software and qualitative analysis: A reassessment. In G. Blank, J.L. McCartney & E. Brent (Eds.), New technology in sociology (pp. 141-154). New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  • Weitzman, E.A. (1999). Analyzing qualitative data with computer software. Health Services Research: Part 2, 34 (5), 1241-1263.
  • Wolfe, R.A., Gephart, R.P., & Johnson, T.E. (1993). Computer-facilitated qualitative data analysis: Potential contributions to management research. Journal of Management, 19(3), 637-660.
  • Woods, L. & Robert, P. (2000). Generating theory and evidence from qualitative computerized software. Nurse Researcher: International Journal of Research Methodology in Nursing and Health care, 8(2), 29-41.

Skeptic Views
  • Agar, M. (1991). The right brain strikes back. In N.G. Fielding & R.M. Lee (Eds.), Using computers in qualitative research (pp. 181-193). London: Sage.
  • Bong, S. A. (2002). Debunking myths in qualitative data analysis. Forum of Qualitative Social Research, 3 (2). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02bong-e.htm
  • Coffey, A., Holbrook, B. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: technologies and representations. Sociological Research Online, 1(1).
  • Crang, M.A., Hudson, A.C., Reimer, S.M., & Hinchliffe, S.J. (1997). Software for qualitative research: 1. Prospectus and overview. Environment and Planning A, 29(5), 771-787.
  • Dotzler, H. (1995). Using software for interpretive text analysis: Results from interviews with research teams. Paper presented at the Conference SoftStat ´95 (The 8th Conference on the Scientific Use of Statistical Software). Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Drisko, J. W. (1998). Using qualitative data analysis software. Computers in Human Services, 15(1), 1-19.
  • Este, D., Sieppert, J., & Barsy, A. (1998). Teaching and learning qualitative research with and without qualitative data analysis software. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(2), 138-154.
  • Lonkila, M. (1995). Grounded theory as an emerging paradigm for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice (pp.41-51). London, Sage.
  • MacMillan, K. & Koenig, T. (2004). The wow factor: Preconceptions and expectations for data analysis software in qualitative research. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 179-186.
  • Roberts, K. A. & Wilson, R. W. (2002). ICT and the research process: Issues around the compatibility of technology with qualitative data analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02robertswilson-e.htm
  • Sandelowski, M. (1995). On the aesthetics of qualitative research. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 27, 205-209.
  • Seidel, J. (1991). Method and madness in the application of computer technology to qualitative data analysis. In N. G. Fielding & R. M. Lee (Eds.), Using Computers in Qualitative Research. (pp. 107-116). London: Sage.
  • Thompson, R. (2002). Reporting the results of computer-assisted analysis of qualitative research data. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02thompson-e.htm
  • Wall, E. (1995). The Problem with NUD*ISTs. Society/Societie, 19(1), 13-14.

Reactions to the Skeptical Views
  • Lee, R. M., & Fielding, N. G. (1995). User’s experiences of qualitative data analysis software. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and practice (pp.29-40). London: Sage.
  • Richards, L. (1997). User's Mistake as Developer's Challenge: Designing the New NUD*IST. Qualitative Health Research, 7(3), 425-433.
  • Seidel, J. & Kelle, U. (1995). Different functions of coding in the analysis of textual data. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data Analysis: theory, methods and practice (pp.52-61). London/Thousand Oaks/New Dehli: Sage.

Using CAQAS to Support Collaborative Working/Multiple Coders
  • Berends, L. & Johnston, J. (2005). Using multiple coders to enhance qualitative analysis: The case of interviews with consumers of drug treatment. Addiction Research & Theory, 13(4), 373-382.
  • Bourdon, S. (2002). The integration of qualitative data analysis software in research strategies: Resistances and possibilities. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 3(2).
  • Ford, K., Oberski, I. & Higgins, S. (2000). Computer-aided qualitative analysis of interview data: Some recommendations for collaborative working. The Qualitative Report, 4 (3,4). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/oberski.html
  • MacQueen, K. M., McLellan E., Kay, K. & Milstein, B. (1998). Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(2), 31-36.
  • Manderson, L., Kelaher, M. & Woelz-Stirling, N. (2001). Developing qualitative databases for multiple users. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2): 149-160.
  • Sin, Chih Hoong (2007a). Teamwork involving qualitative data analysis software: Striking a balance between research ideals and pragmatics. Social Science Computer Review.
  • Sin, Chih Hoong (2007b). Using software to open up the ‘black box’ of qualitative data analysis in evaluations. Evaluation, 13(1), 110-120.

Using CAQAS to Support Inter-coder Reliability

Using CAQDAS to Support Validity
  • Kelle, U. & Laurie, H. (1995). Computer use in qualitative research and issues of validity. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and practice (pp.19-28). London/Thousand Oaks/New Dehli: Sage.

Using CAQAS to Support Confirmability/Audit Trail
  • Bringer, J. D. , Johnston L. H. & Brackenridge, C. H. (2004). Maximizing transparency in a doctoral thesis: The complexities of writing about the use of QSR*NVIVO within a grounded theory study. Qualitative Research, 4, 247-265.
  • Northey Jr, W F. (1997). Using QSR NUD*IST to demonstrate confirmability in qualitative research. Family Science Review, 10(2), pp. 170-179.

Using Computer Programming to Measure Typicality of Text
  • Ryan, G. (1999). Measuring the typicality of text: Using multiple coders for more than just reliability and validity checks. Human Organization, 58(3), 313-322.

Computerized Versus Traditional Methods
  • Basit, T. N. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in quantitative data analysis. Educational Research, 45(2), 143-154. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.faculty.english.ttu.edu/Rickly/5389/coding.pdf
  • Dolan, A., & Ayland, C. (2001). Analysis on trial. International Journal of Market Research, 43(4), 377-389.
  • Webb, C. (1999). Analyzing qualitative data: Computerized and other approaches. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(2), 323-330.

Choosing a package/ Comparison or review one or more software
  • Alexa, M. & Zuell, C. (1999). A Review of Text Analysis Software. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial 5. ZUMA: Mannheim.
  • Barry, C. A. (1998). Choosing qualitative data analysis software: Atlas.ti and Nudist compared. Sociological Research Online , 3. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/3/4.html
  • Becker, H. S., Gordon, A. C. & LeBailly, R. K. (1984). Field work with the computer: Criteria for assessing systems. Qualitative Sociology, 7(1/2), 16-18. Efficiency, confidentiality, data reduction, and flexibility of testing propositions are discussed as criteria for assessing any system which facilitates field work. The paper concludes by contrasting the methods previously used to collect data, reduce its bulk, code, and retrieve information with what is possible with today’s computer hardware and software, and with what will be possible in the near future.
  • Clamp, C. G. L., Gough, S., & Land, L. (2004). Appendix A: Computer programs for design and analysis. Resources for Nursing Research: An Annotated Bibliography (4th ed.), pp348-340. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. The Appendix within this book provides a list of software aiding process of research design and analysis. It includes purpose descriptions and publisher information for the total 27 computer programs.
  • Fielding, N. (1995a, May). Choosing the right qualitative software package. ESRC Data Archive Bulletin, 58. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/fieldingchoosing.pdf Based on the typology of qualitative analysis software (text retrievers, code-and-retrieve packages, and theory-builders) the author defined in the 1994, September issue of ESRC Data Archive Bulletin, he points out that it is possible to identify criteria to apply in deciding which type of package best suits one’s needs, either on a particular project or to meet the demands likely to arise over a period of several years. Packages vary substantially and in several key respects. Just as with research design in general, the guiding principle is to choose the right tool for the job. One also needs to know something about qualitative analysis before choosing a package. Another issue is whether one is engaged in team research or is working solo. These are important considerations but there are also user-related issues that should inform our choice of packages.
  • Fielding, N. (1995b, May). Fitting packages to projects. ESRC Data Archive Bulletin, 59. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/fieldingfitting.pdf
  • Fielding, N. (1994, September). Getting into computer-aided qualitative data analysis. ESRC Data Archive Bulletin, 57. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/fieldinggettinginto.pdf
  • Friese, S. (2004). Software overview. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.quarc.de/software_overview_table.pdf
  • Hwang, Sungsoo. (2008). Utilizing Qualitative Data Analysis Software: A review of Atlas.ti. Social Social Science Computer Review, 26 (4), Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://ssc.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/0894439307312485v1.pdf
  • Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2007). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide. Sage.
  • Lewins, A. and Silver, C. (2005) Choosing a CAQDAS Package - A working paper by Ann Lewins, & Christina Silver. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/ChoosingLewins&SilverV3Nov05.pdf
  • Lewins, A. (1996). Qualitative data analysis software: A review of significant features of QSR NUD*IST and notes of comparison with ATLAS/ti, the Ethnograph and HyperRESEARCH. Evaluation, 2(4), 471-478. The author compares several popular software and suggest that the way the data from a particular project needs to be handled may depend on the size of the dataset and the time available to produce analysis; it is helpful to know in advance in what ways the software is going to expect you to handle the data, and if it is going to suit the project.
  • Lewis, R. B. (2004). NVivo 2.0 and Atlas.ti 5.0: A comparative review of two popular qualitative data-analysis programs. Field Methods, 16(4), 439-469.
  • Lewis, R.B. (2002). ATLAS/ti and NUD.IST: A comparative review of two leading qualitative data analysis packages. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10 (3), 41-47.
  • Marshall, H. (2002, August). Horses for courses: Facilitating postgraduate students' choice of computer assisted qualitative data analysis systems (CAQDAS). Contemporary Nurse, 13(1), 29-37.
  • Miles, M.,, & Weitzman, E. A. (1994). Appendix: Choosing computer programs for qualitative data analysis. In M. Miles and M. Huberman (Eds.), Qualitative data analysis, an expanded sourcebook (pp.311-317). CA: Thousand Oaks/Sage
  • Russell C.K., & Gregory D.M.(1993). Issues for consideration when choosing a qualitative data management system. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(11), 1806-1816.
  • Walker, B. L. (1993). Computer analysis of qualitative data: A comparison of three packages. Qualitative Health Research, 3(1), 91-111.
  • Walsh, B., & Lavalli, T. (1996). Beyond beancounting: qualitative research software for business. MicroTimes, 162.
  • Weitzman, E.A., & Miles, M. B. (1995a). Choosing software for qualitative data analysis: An overview. Cultural Anthropology Method, 7, 1-5.
  • Weitzman, E.A., & Miles, M.B. (1995b). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis: A software source book. Thousand Oaks: Sage
  • Tesch, R. (1991b). Computer programs that assist in the analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Qualitative Health Research, 1(3), 309-325.
  • Tesch, R. (1991c). Software for qualitative researchers: Analysis needs and program capabilities. In N. G. Fielding, & R. M. Lee (Eds.): Using computers in qualitative research (pp. 16-37). London: Sage.



Quicklinks: Home | Books | Articles | About