Quote From olivia:
======= Date Modified 23 Jun 2011 11:53:11 =======
======= Date Modified 23 Jun 2011 11:49:06 =======
PS--I agree with the post about NVivo...
I personally ran as far as I could from using computer programs to code data when I did my PhD. I hated the program, to start with, found it clunky and difficult to use, that it interfered with my own thought processes, and made it very difficult to do analysis...
I stuck to pen and paper and was happier with the results. All NVivo was to me was a jumped up coloured marker made complicated. I know some people like it and can use it, its horse for courses... I was a little horrified with the academic mindset that somehow technical gizmos made for better analysis and had to defend my non use of this program...
For that matter, I am happier composing drafts in hard copy and in editing in hard copy...perhaps just an age thing!
I used the Review mode of Word to do what I'd have done manually with highlighter pens and handwritten comments. I used different highlighting colours to highlight which interview sections (in big chunks) might relate to each sup-question (and did multi-options on this where necessary) And I used the Comment facility to add my thoughts as I went along.
I then created a Quotes and Notes file where I placed all data relating to each sup-question, and dragged those with the Comments into each. It was a techno kind of use of the Review facility. So basically, I colour-coded everything, and also had the notes attached as Comments. It was fairly speedy, and very useful. I like colour-coding. It gives you a visual map.
But I only did that at the very end, and retained as a whole all transcripts with their variation of colours totally intact, throughout. It worked on a perceptual and a conceptual level.
