[Air-l] qualitative analysis of discussion board postings

[Sam Ladner]

Hello all,

I would also suggest NVivo, which is relatively easy to figure out,
though it has some user interface issues that are annoying.

That said, however, I was once in a jam with no access to qualitative
software at all. I used the "open sort" method, which can be done very
well with a few tools:

1. post it notes
2. pens
3. a really big wall
4. no wind

I coded the transcripts from interviews this way with a pile of the
transcripts on my lap, and a ready post-it note, on which I scribbled a
new theme every time it came up.

Eventually, you find yourself repeating....yourself. And then you just
start arranging and re-arranging the post its into over-arching themes.

This method works very well with groups as well, and I employ it
regularly in my work at a Web agency (we frequently have to organize
large amounts of technical requirements and map those back to user
research we have done).

And about grounded theory, well, I think that person may have been
talking about poor uses of grounded theory. One should only employ this
is one is looking to develop an actual theory about, say, technical
requirements gathering. I could conceive of a theory like, "determinants
of technical requirements gathering include; socio-political context;
timing; and technical architecture" or something. 

But lord knows that this term has been abused because people think they
are using grounded theory if they "ground" their work in "theory. " Bah.



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sam Ladner
Account Planner
CRITICAL MASS
12th Floor
11 King Street West
Toronto, ON
M5H 4C7
e: saml at criticalmass.com
v: 416.673.5275 ext. 3244
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

> -----Original Message-----
> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
[mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeremy Hunsinger
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:40 AM
> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> Subject: Re: [Air-l] qualitative analysis of discussion board postings
> 
> this "grounded theory has been busted for the nonsense that it is"
> sounds suspiciously like what i termed  methodological ideology.  If
> it isn't ideological, perhaps it is just a form of methodological
> orthodoxy.  I'm not going to say that grounded theory is good or
> great personally, as i've only read a few texts and never used it, it
> does seem to be one of the major theories that frames qualitative
> analysis.  I think the key to grounded theory is to realize that is
> designed to discover theories, which is a problematic concept in some
> ways.   if you aren't in the process of 'theory development' then it
> might not be the model for you.   in any case, there is a ton of
> dissertations, and related 'quality' scholarship in using grounded
> theory that to the casual observer indicates that it has some
> usefulness.  i'd propose suspending judgement until sufficient
> citations are provided.
> 
> There are many ways of thinking and analyzing the world that would be
> antagonistic toward grounded theory.   i can imagine if one is a
> practice-turn ethnographer that the facility for theory discovery
> seems less necessary in the face of the brute facts of the
> experiences that you describe.  But, I don't know.
> 
> i think the best way to think of methods is methodological pluralism,
> which in my mind argues that there are many ways to access knowledge
> and that the knowledge generated is always the same sort about the
> same thing, but in the end the application of one suite of
> methodoligical tools to its appropriate data is as valuable as
> another suite and that any given analysis is likely to be limited by
> the methods used.
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 10, 2006, at 4:11 AM, Denise N. Rall wrote:
> 
> > Dear Ulla et al.-
> >
> > Thanks for the framing theory. I was going to
> > recommend *anything but* grounded theory - as Georgina
> > Born said recently in Masterclass (sorry but she's
> > cool) - "grounded theory has been busted for the
> > nonsense it is" but unfortunately I forget who said
> > this.  She's an ethnographer so there might be some
> > bias built in there.
> >
> > Cheers, Denise
> >
> >
> 
> Jeremy Hunsinger
> School of Library and Information Science
> Pratt Institute
> () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
> /\ - against microsoft attachments
> 
> http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers
> http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki
> http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/  LI-the journal
> http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/  Transdisciplinary
> Studies:the book series
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-
> aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/

The information contained in this message is confidential. It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity named above or their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this message.