|
Promoting Emergent Qualitative Inquiry Within Structured Evaluation Practices Through NVivo
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Dan Kaczynski, Central Michigan University, dan.kaczynski@cmich.edu
|
| Michelle Salmona, Central Michigan University, michelle.salmona@cmich.edu
|
| Abstract:
One of the questions posed by the AEA 2010 Presidential Invitation is; “How do we balance dimensions of evaluation quality when they seem in opposition to one another?” A critical aspect to this issue is the inherent tension between theory and practice when designing and conducting qualitative evaluations. This paper explores how the use of qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) can be used by evaluators as a technological tool to bridge theory and practice, thus promoting high quality qualitative evaluation practices. Sponsors, stakeholders and evaluation team members commonly have a voice and share in shaping the intent and meanings sought through qualitative evaluation. This voice frames method choices which, in-turn, influences evaluation design considerations. A means, however, to keep qualitative theoretical considerations in the forefront must be maintained. Toward this end, QDAS may be used to promote transparency of qualitative methodology and ultimately, the quality of an evaluation study.
|
|
Individual Versus NVivo
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jenny May, University of South Carolina, jennygusmay@yahoo.com
|
| Robert Petrulis, University of South Carolina, petrulis@mailbox.sc.edu
|
| Abstract:
Many universities provide access to NVivo software to assist in the analysis of qualitative data. The experience of working with qualitative data led this researcher to ask in what ways the use of qualitative analysis software might influence analysis results. Does NVivo change researchers’ perceptions and analysis of the data, and if so, how? This study systematically compares research summaries of qualitative data written by several qualitative researcher-participants with varying degrees of experience. Researchers were assigned to a research methodology group: NVivo, or manual analysis. After analyzing one transcript using their assigned methodology, researchers analyzed a second transcript using the alternative method. All researcher-participants received training for the NVivo program, and were directed to analyze transcripts for the same purpose. Summaries were then compared to determine if a difference regarding the content reported or excluded exists between methods of analysis. Interviews were conducted to obtain insight regarding researchers’ perceptions of data analysis procedures. This study is a replicate of a study presented at AEA in 2009 with an increased number of participants to obtain a more complete understanding of the phenomenon.
|
| |