Hello,
Hello,

I have been to the field, collected about 30 interviews, fully transcribed them and done some grounded theory analysis using Nvivo8 software. I have written a paper on how i used the software to a journal. i have now been told to resubmit and ' reflect a bit more on the methodological issues in using software, as the current paper on the steps taken is too descriptive'. It sounds a bit vague. Perhaps because i've been in the field and not written academically for some time. Can someone pls give some tips on how to do this?

Cheers

K

Hi there

Difficult without having read the paper, but I think what you are saying is what ends up being the problem with most methodology chapters in theses.The descriptive way of doing this would be to outline all the decisions (from choosing a method, designing the project), steps of using a software, coding framework etc.

But another way to do this, is perhaps to write it as a piece of text on your approach to epistemology and analysis. So, then, from having sections that describe the purpose of an interview, or who said what on grounded theory (for instance quoting Glasser and Strauss over and again) or describing how you adopted a particular coding framework, you may wish to think through some of the concetual priorities in this project - i.e. why grounded theory for this research question, how did the research evolve in the field, what was the role of the esearcher, power dynamics between researcher and researched (and how and if at all this impacted the research process) and so on...

I get the feeling examiners who read methods chapters (and perhaps your reviewer) are lessinclined to read (a) quotes from the research on specific qualitative methods (Miles and Huberman, Glasser and Strauss, Boyatzis, Yin and so on are cited multiple times) (b) or even paragraphs on what you did and how, but are more inclined to see why you made the empirical choices you made, what the underlying priorities were and how it comes together.

I am in the middle of drafting my methods chapter, after my sup (a little tersely) tore apart my idea of methodology at a supervision and then emailed me asking for an intelligent piece of writing on epistemology and interpretive stratgey!

Whoops, that got me thinking (behyond methods text books!!)

Best of luck

Bug

Hi Bug,

Thanks for your reply. Your comments will be useful for my methodology chapter (which i am currently writing) and also on the paper. However, my question is for a paper i am sending for a conference and journal publication (just focusing on the experience of using CAQDAS in qualitative research).

If you have particular questions on the epistemology, i can try to help. Different books use the different philosophical ideas differently (E.g, what is an epistemology in one text is a theoretical perspective in another and an ontology in another). Even different acamedicians have different interpretations on what the different philosophical ideas mean. The book i used mostly is Crotty's (1998) Foundations of social research. I'm using constructionism as my epistemological position in my research.

In the light of the clarification, if there is a new comment you'll like to make,that will be greatly appreciated. Thanks again.

Kind regards,

K

I was going to recommend Crotty's. I think it separates the issues really well, although I've still no clue as to my methodology.

I think what your sup is looking for (like Bug, I can't know without having read it) is a greater tie in of your chosen epistomological/ontological/methodological position with the problem you are looking at and what methods you intend to use. From what I gather, your sup thinks you've been focusing too much on the methods and not enough on why you are using the particular methods.....at a guess.

If you're using constructionism as an epistemology, why have you chosen to do that, is it due to the type of people you are researching, do they belong to a marginalized group, for example? Also, your supervisor may want you to discuss why you are using NVivo to help you manage your data as the use of computer software can be a bit contentious, as it increases the distance between the researcher and the researched. I hope that makes sense and is useful.

And I admire anyone that can understand NVivo, I had a methods training class on it the other day and wanted to tear my hair out, its so confusing! But I don't really use grounded theory so probably won't use it again, good luck though!