![]() ![]() According to this perspective, QDA software is used within the context of many different methods and does not prescribe a specific way of using it (e.g. Second, they mention a contrary position, it sees QDA-software as a method-neutral “tool”. Therefore, people just do what can be done easily with QDA-software and subconsciously apply a “universal method” no matter if it applicable or not (e.g. 10-12) by comparing two extreme positions:įirst, QDA-software forces researchers to use a certain method that promotes working with categories and neglects more interpretative approaches. Rädiker and Kuckartz open this subchapter (Rädiker Kuckarzt 2019, p. 12) compare the suggestive power of QDAS to the bread in the oven that cries “Take me out!” in the fairy tale of Frau Holle. Is MAXQDA a method? Rädiker and Kuckartz (2019, p. – “MAXQDA is not a method!”, I always warned my students. Even more surprising was their answer: yes, it sort of is. I am using and teaching MAXQDA for years, so what can it possibly tell me? As it turned out, right in the first chapter I stumbled upon an interesting question: “Is MAXQDA actually a method?” they ask. I am currently reading “Analyse qualitativer Daten mit MAXQDA” (Analysis of qualitative Data with MAXQDA) by Stefan Rädiker and Udo Kuckarzt (Rädiker Kuckartz 2019) and to be honest, I did not expect too much. However, it is not a method in itself and we always need some external “building plan”(a method) to guide us. Granted, QDA-software is far from methodologically neutral and strongly influences the way we design our research. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |