Computing Packages for Qualitative Data Management - Essay Example

Introduction Researchers in the social sciences and other fields are faced with a vast array of options when they decide to investigate some social phenomenon. For the beginning researcher, the range of options available can be overwhelming. Having to decide whether to use surveys, focus groups, telephone interviews, or any of the information gathering options can be challenging but so too are the analysis of information gathered and the writing of the final report; with computers an ubiquity in many advanced countries, it is perhaps the rare researcher who does research without the use of a computer at any stage of the process. In this brave new world of computers it is not only with word processing that computers can give the impression of saving time; computers are being employed in greater numbers in the analysis of research material. Considering that both the analysis of research and the writing process are essential components of the researcher’s work it is instructive to examine what Carol Grbich has to say about the use of computing packages for qualitative data management and what Aluusatari P. writes regarding the writing process for researcher. Scope of the articles In the article, “Computing Packages for Qualitative Data Management: what is Their Real Impact?” Carol Grbich takes the reader to the early days of the development of computing programs for qualitative analysis. Many of the concerns that were raised about those early programs have been addressed, including issues of validity, reliability, and generalisability. It seems, however, that the current crop of programs available for qualitative data analysis are so complex and offer so much that new concerns arise as to whether the researcher might become a slave of sorts to the program and lose the element of creativity that has been an unspoken hallmark of research. Grbich enlightens the reader regarding the two main types of theory generating programs, that is, data and literature, as well as the typical processes involved in their use. Beyond this description of qualitative analysis programs the researcher orients the reader to the traditional methods by which researchers without computing assistance have approached their work. Grbich not only shows knowledge of the computing systems available to qualitative researchers but presents an even more comprehensive knowledge of the research process unmediated by the use of computers. Rather than seek to elevate computers and their use as efficiency tools for the researcher, Grbich appears to provide a cautionary note to researchers that things are not always what they seem and that if computers can simplify some processes for the researcher there is a need to be concerned about what they probably take away from the value and quality of the work. In “The Writing Process,” Alasuutari leaves no doubt regarding the important role that writing plays in research in general. The writer touches on writing, both with respect to the finished product and the little pieces of writing such as notes, memos, that one often does while a major writing project is in the works. There are reminders aplenty regarding the importance of writing, that is, what it does and how best one can learn it. The distinction that the writer makes between macrostructure and microstructure in writing can be helpful to a beginning academic writer but probably not to a seasoned writer. Alaasutari goes into considerable detail, discussing both the macrostructure, which involves the overall structure of a written work, and microstructure of writing, which is concerned about sentence structure. Alasuutari also takes the reader back to some of the aims and goals of scientific writing from the very beginning of academic research and writing and wonders about the domination of scientifically-oriented writing even in the social sciences. Intended audience Though beginning researchers can benefit from reading Grbich’s article on Computer Packages it seems that the intended audience is experienced researchers, in particular those who have experience with traditional methods of doing qualitative analysis and may be feeling seduced by the potential for using computers in their research. Considering the ubiquity of computers today and their widespread use in research, in particular quantitative research, a researcher who admits to not using computers might feel like a dinosaur. Using computers, on the surface then, can give the impression that a researcher is up to date but Grbich forces the reader to consider if indeed the crop of qualitative analysis software, advanced as they are, really do offer a superior method of analysis compared with the traditional approach. In fact, rather than enhancing the qualitative research process, Grbich sees a subversion, or distortion, of the traditional approach by the use of computers, and that something gets lost in the process of using computers and their rigid, rational-like approaches. As Grbich points out, “The sequential and procedural approaches which are intrinsic to individual programs inevitably structure thought processes and texture the data in particular ways” (Grbich 1998). In other words, a researcher is forced to subordinate his or her own thinking processes to some extent in order to be led by the computer program’s method of structuring knowledge. Furthermore, Grbich touches on the possibility for computers and their privileging of logic and rationality over lateral, multiperspective approaches to alienate women. In addition, the programs out there are not necessarily suitable for all forms of qualitative research since in many cases they were created by researchers to suit their own purposes. The concerns raised by Grbich are those that new researchers, in particular those contemplating the use of computers ought to be aware of but it is geared more so for those with long years of experience who might be thinking about “upgrading” and would be glad to know, from Grbich’s analysis, that the traditional, non-computer mediated approach to research may have strengths that the computer cannot easily replace. It appears that the beginning researcher would most benefit from Alasuutari’s work in that more experienced researchers and writers are likely to be fully familiar with many of the points that the researcher makes regarding the writing process. Case in point: “There are several reasons for keeping a diary about one’s remarks, ideas and initial hypotheses during the research process. For one thing, such notes can later be expanded into sections of the final product. Secondly, although many of the ideas will turn out to be not that thrilling on a later reading, the first impression one gets of a social environment, incident or text is often insightful” (Alasuutari 1995). More evidence that Alasuutari is more concerned about the needs of the beginning writer emerges from the following comment: “The macrostructure is, however, a problematic in its own right, and the difficulties related to it may be because many thesis writers do not have previous experience in writing an essay or article longer than a few dozen pages. When a treatise exceeds a certain critical length, it cannot be held together with presentational and logico-chronological means that work perfectly well in a school essay or an article” (Alasuutari 1995). The focus on qualitative research as a literary process, however, might provide food for thought for more experienced researchers who have not taken the time to analyse the kind of writing that they do and to consider if it really fits. Timeliness Alasuutari’s work, “The Writing Process,” and Grbich’s “Computing Packages for Qualitative Data Management,” were published in 1995 and 1998 respectively. Even though these articles are several years removed from today, their concerns and highlights are no less valid. In the case of the use of computers for qualitative analysis, many of the points raised continue to be an issue because computers do indeed give the appearance of objectivity though this does not necessarily mean an improvement in analysis and the issues that writers of long reports face have not diminished in the span of the years since Alasuutari wrote. In fact, the points raised in both reports are of even greater urgency today because more and more computer programs are turning up in the field of research, each promising the moon, and seducing researchers into thinking that they can cede their own thinking to the computer and be sure of getting results and analysis worthy of the hard work that researchers in previous generations did through systematic thinking, trial and error, and efforts to look at familiar problems in new ways. Alasuutari’s work is also prescriptive in that the researcher challenges the traditional format of social science presentations as being useful for qualitative presentations. “Rather than the journal format, it is more advisable to apply an approach that, instead of hypothesis-listing in the beginning, proceeds by pointing out mysteries and by gradually developing questions and answers. Such a presentational format, often referred to as the ‘essay format’ (Sociology Writing Group 1994, 21-22), does not start out with a heavy dose of theory and previous research, to be followed by a separate empirical section near the end. (Alasuutari 1995). This so-called mystery format, rather than being a new discovery, has been used in the past by such eminent researchers as Emile Durkheim, according to Alasuutari (1995). Objectivity Both writers, as researchers and scholars, give the impression of objectivity, but both start out with pretty strong views about the subjects about which they write and try to marshal other forces in their quest to prove their point. Both works are extensively referenced. As Grbich’s work is an article, there is a long bibliographical list that shows that the author did not merely present personal opinions but took the time to consider what others had written about the subject. Still, research can be selective and it seems that Grbich chose texts that supported the point of view that was being espoused in the article. In particular when Grbich talks about how the new computer based software is possibly alienating women, the rhetoric is a familiar one used by many feminists in challenging the patriarchal order that is supposed to have kept women on the sidelines for generations. As Grbich writes, “The gendering of technology through ‘masculine logic (Wajcman, 1991) is one area where texturing of reality has been identified as having the potential to distance woman from involvement in computing packages” (Grbich 1998). Despite this assertion, there are many women who are comfortable with the use of computers and do not feel sidelined by the use of computers. This is particularly the case with young people, both male and female, who have grown up comfortable with computers and where computers do not come across as being a mainly manly oriented contraption. Alasuutari’s work is a chapter in a book and so does not list the bibliography right after the text. Even so, there are numerous quotations from other writers that are used to support particular points that the researcher makes. Here again there is an attempt at objectivity but the researcher is also aware that the very notion that research has a rhetorical dimension is a radical one and that this idea upends what many researchers would like to believe: that their writing is strictly scientific and has nothing in common with fiction writing techniques. In the post modern world, however, more room has been made for different forms of research and the rationalist perspective, both in terms of information gathering and presentation has given way in some cases to a wider array of acceptable material. The pseudo-scientific writing style that many researchers have adopted limit their potential audience. Though such researchers might claim to be writing for their fellow researchers there is no indication that the obtuse prose is always readily understandable by their peers. It seems that the whole of scientific researchers would benefit by considering some of the points made by Alasuutari in that using the techniques and even choice of words used by novelists and other writers would make scientific work more accessible to a wider range of people and save time even for researchers who probably secretly struggle to understand the writings of their peers. Authors’ background Grbich, who writes about computer packages is an Associate Professor of Health Sciences at the Palliative and Supportive Services Unit in the School of Medicine at Flinders University. She is actively involved in research relating to sociological critiques in areas that include changes in family structure in Australia and the reversal of traditional parenting roles (Grbich, Prof Carol http://www.flinders.edu.au/expertise/cf/staff.cfm?id=38932). She is actively involved in the use of qualitative research in her own work and so one might say that, to some extent, she knows whereof she speaks. P. Alasuutari is a professor of sociology at the University of Tampere in Finland and has written extensively on sociology topics. It is apropos that Alasuutari, a sociologist, tackles the issue of writing in social research because subject areas such as sociology have been struggling for many years to gain respectability by aligning the subject with the natural sciences, in effect, borrowing methodologies and modes of presentation. The admission that researchers might benefit by understanding the role of rhetoric in presenting their material may seem radical to some researchers but it is also a matter of common sense when one considers the incredible amount of time lost through the use of turgid prose by researchers who follow the old conventions of style not because they are necessarily good but because their predecessors did things that way. Conclusion Taken together, ‘The Writing Process,” and “Computing Packages for Qualitative Data Management,” provide rich fodder both for the beginning researcher and the more seasoned researcher who may be looking for fresh inspiration for not just researching but for presenting material. The article on computing packages is no less radical in that it helps researchers to avoid following a herd mentality and using computers just because everyone is using them. Likewise the article of writing forces researchers to examine their work and their mode of presentation and to focus anew on whether they would benefit from adopting some of the methods that have allowed generations of fiction writers to communicate with large numbers of ordinary people through clear expression of ideas and thoughts. Bibliography Alasuutari, P. Chapter Fourteen: The Writing Process in Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies, Sage Publications, London, 1995. Alasuutari, P. The Europa World of Learning. http://www.worldoflearning.com/views/entry/FI/5/15/8/6/1 (October 24, 2006) Grbich, C. Computing packages for qualitative data management: what is their real impact? Australian Journal of Primary Health, Vol 4 Issue 3 (1998):98-103. Grbich, Prof Carol http://www.flinders.edu.au/expertise/cf/staff.cfm?id=38932 (October 22, 2006) Read More