Dedoose Publications


Dedoose has been field-tested and journal-proven by leading academic institutions and market researchers worldwide. Thousands of prominent researchers across the US and abroad have benefited from early versions of Dedoose in their qualitative and mixed methods work and have laid an outstanding publication and report trail along the way.

Education Based Publications

Managing Data in CAQDAS

Fielding, Nigel & Lee, Ray M. (1998)

Chapter 4 in Fielding & Lee, Computer Analysis and Qualitative Research, pp. 86-118

from COMPUTER ASSISTED QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE: A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR APPLIED RESEARCH, JOSEPH B. BAUGH, ANNE SABER HALLCOM, and MARILYN E. HARRIS Computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) holds a chequered reputation to date in academia, but can be useful to develop performance metrics in the field of corporate social and environmental responsibility and other areas of contemporary business. Proponents of using CAQDAS cite its ability to save time and effort in data management by extending the ability of the researcher to organize, track and manage data. Opponents decry the lack of rigor and robustness in the resultant analyses. Research reveals that these opinions tend to be divided by “the personal biography and the philosophical stance of the analyst” (Catterall & Maclaran, 1998, p. 207), as well as “age, computer literacy, and experience as a qualitative researcher” (Mangabeira, Lee & Fielding, 2004, p. 170). A more recent article (Atherton & Elsmore 2007) discussed the continuing debate on CAQDAS in qualitative research: The two perspectives both indicate that CAQDAS should be used with care and consideration; in ways that explicitly demonstrate a “fit” between the ethos and philosophical perspective(s) underpinning a research study, on the one hand, and the means of ordering and manipulating the data within CAQDAS on the other. (p. 75) Despite the ongoing literary debate on the merits of CAQDAS, the use of computer-aided qualitative data analysis has become acceptable to most qualitative researchers (Lee & Esterhuizen; Morison & Moir, 1998; Robson, 2002). However, writers advise that researchers avoid the trap of letting the software control the data analysis (Catterall & Maclaran, 1998). Morison and Moir counseled that CAQDAS is merely one tool in the qualitative data analysis toolbox. No tool should replace the researcher's capacity to think through the data and develop his or her emergent conclusions (Atherton & Elsmore, 2007). On the other hand, Morison and Moir among others (e.g., Blank, 2004; Catterall & Maclaran, 1998; Mangabeira et al., 2004) found the use of qualitative data analysis software can also free up significant amounts of time formerly used in data management and encoding allowing the researcher to spend more time in deeper and richer data evaluation. Qualitative research studies to develop performance metrics can create huge amounts of raw data (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Robson, 2002). Organizing, tracking, encoding, and managing the data are not trivial tasks and the effort should not be underestimated by the applied researcher. Two methodologies exist to handle these activities and manage the data during the data analysis phase. The first methodology is a manual process, which must be done at times to avoid missing critical evidence and provide trustworthiness in the process (Malterud, 2001), while the second methodology indicates the use of technology for managing the data and avoid being overwhelmed by the sheer amount of raw data (Lee & Esterhuizen, 2000). It is the experience of the authors that some manual processing must be interspersed with CAQDAS. This provides an intimacy with the data which leads to the drawing of credible and defensible conclusions. Thus, a mixed approach that melds manual and automated data analyses seems most appropriate. A basic approach for applying traditional qualitative research methodologies lies in the ability of CAQDAS to support data reduction through the use of a “provisional start list” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 58) of data codes that are often developed manually from the research question. A rise in the use of CAQDAS for applied research and other nonacademic research fields has been identified (Fielding & Lee, 2002). Since CAQDAS is becoming more prevalent in nonacademic researcher populations and can be useful for developing performance metrics for corporate social and environmental responsibility and solving other complex business issues, it seems prudent at this juncture to discuss how to use the software appropriately rather than rehash the argument for or against using CAQDAS. Selection of and training with an appropriate CAQDAS package can help the researcher manage the mountains of data derived from qualitative research data collection methods (Lee & Esterhuizen, 2000).
Medical Based Publications

Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis

MacQueen, Kathleen M., McLellan, Eleanor, Kay, Kelly, & Milstein Bobby (1998)

Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(2): 31-36

One of the key elements in qualitative data analysis is the systematic coding of text (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Miles and Huberman 1994:56). Codes are the building blocks for theory or model building and the foundation on which the analyst’s arguments rest. Implicitly or explicitly, they embody the assumptions underlying the analysis. Given the context of the interdisciplinary nature of research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we have sought to develop explicit guidelines for all aspects of qualitative data analysis, including codebook development. On the one hand, we must often explain basic methods such as this in clear terms to a wide range of scientists who have little or no experience with qualitative research and who may express a deep skepticism of the validity of our results. On the other, our codebook development strategy must be responsive to the teamwork approach that typifies the projects we undertake at CDC, where coding is generally done by two or more persons who may be located at widely dispersed sites. We generally use multiple coders so that we can assess the reliability and validity of the coded data through intercoder agreement measures (e.g., Carey et al. 1996) and, for some projects, as the only reasonable way to handle the sheer volume of data generated. The standardized structure and dynamic process used in our codebook development strategy reflects these concerns. This paper describes (1) how a structured codebook provides a stable frame for the dynamic analysis of textual data; (2) how specific codebook features can improve intercoder agreement among multiple researchers; and (3) the value of team-based codebook development and coding. Origins of the Codebook Format Our codebook format evolved over the course of several years and a variety of projects. The conceptual origins took shape in 1993 during work on the CDC-funded Prevention of HIV in Women and Infants Project (WIDP) (Cotton et al. 1998), which generated approximately 600 transcribed semistructured interviews. One research question pursued was whether women’s narratives about their own heterosexual behavior could help us understand general processes of change in condom use behavior (Milstein et al. 1998). The researchers decided to use the processes of change (POC) constructs from the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska 1984; DiClemente and Prochaska 1985) as a framework for the text analysis. However, the validity of the POC constructs for condom-use behavior was unknown, and a credible and rigorous text coding strategy was needed to establish their applicability and relevance for this context. To do this, the analysts had to synthesize all that was known about each POC construct, define what it was, what it was not, and, most importantly, learn how to recognize one in natural language. Several years earlier, O’Connell (1989) had confronted a similar problem while examining POCs in transcripts of psychotherapy sessions. Recognizing that "coding processes of change often requires that the coder infer from the statement and its context what the intention of the speaker was," O’Connell (1989:106) developed a coding manual that included a section for each code titled "Differentiating (blank) from Other Processes." Milstein and colleagues used O’Connell’s "differentiation" section in a modified format in their analysis of condom behavior change narratives. They conceptualized the "differentiation" component as "exclusion criteria," which complemented the standard code definitions (which then became known as "inclusion criteria"). To facilitate on-line coding with the software program Tally (Bowyer 1991; Trotter 1993), components were added for the code mnemonic and a brief definition, as well as illustrative examples. Thus, the final version of the analysis codebook contained five parts: the code mnemonic, a brief definition, a full definition of inclusion criteria, a full definition of exclusion criteria to explain how the code differed from others, and example passages that illustrated how the code concept might appear in natural language. During the code application phase, information in each of these sections was supplemented and clarified (often with citations and detailed descriptions of earlier work), but the basic structure of the codebook guidelines remained stable.
Education Based Publications

Qualitative Interviewing

Patton, Michael Quinn (1980)

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, In Michael Quinn Patton, Qualitative Evaluation Methods, pp. 195-263

We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe. This issue is not whether observational data are more desireable, valid, or meaningful than self-report data. The fact is tahtw e cannot observe everything. We cannot observe felings, thoughts, intentions, behaviors that took place at some previous point in time, situations that preclude the presence of an observer, or how people have organized the world and the meanings they attach to what goes on in the world. We have to ask people questions about those things. Thus, the purpose of interviewing is to allow us to enter into the other person's perspective. Qualitative interviewing begins with the assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made explicit. We interview to find out what is in and on someone else's mind, to gather their stories. Program evaluation interviews, for example, aim to capture the perspectives of program participants, staff, and others associated with the program. What does the program look and feel like to the people involved? What are their experiences? What thoughts do people knowledgeable about the program have concerning the program? What are their expectations? What changes do participants perceive in themselves as a result of their involvement in the program? It is the responsibility of the evaluator to provide a framework within which people can respond comfortably, accurately, and honestly to these kinds of questions. Evaluations can enhance the use of qualitative data by generating relevant and high quality findings. As Hermann Sudermann said in Es Lebe das Leben I, ‘I know how to listen when clever men are talking. That is the secret of what you8 call my influence.’ Evaluators must learn how to listen when knowledgeable people are talking. That may be the secret of their influence. An evaluator or qualitative or mixed method research interviewer faces the challenge of making it possible for the person being interviewed to bring the interviewer into his or her world. The quality of the information obtained during an interview is largely dependent on the interviewer. This chapter discusses ways of obtaining high-quality information by talking with people who have that information. We’ll be delving into the ‘art of hearing’ (Rubin and Rubin 1995). This chapter presents three different types of interviews. Later sections consider the content of interviews: what questions to ask and how to phrase questions. The chapter ends with a discussion of how to record the responses obtained during interviews. This chapter emphasizes skill and technique as ways of enhancing the quality of interview data, but no less important is a genuine interest in and caring about the perspectives of other people. If what people have to say about the world is generally boring to you, then you will never be a great interviewer. On the other hand, a deep and genuine interest in learning about people is insufficient without disciplined and rigorous inquiry based on skill and technique.
Education Based Publications

Focus Groups

Morgan, David L. (2004)

S. N. Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, pp. 263-285. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Written a long-time authority on focus group, presents a brief history of focus group application up to, and including, information on the variety of current uses across many disciplines. Great section on the uses of focus groups in combination with other methods with a full compare/contrast discussion. Finally, goes into the specifics on ‘how to’ plan and conduct effective group data collection.
Medical Based Publications

Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral Research

Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St. John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004)

Field Methods, 16(3): 307-331

Great discussion and illustration of issues and strategy for establishing reliability in inter-rater coding. Intercoder reliability is a measure of agreement among multiple coders for how they apply codes to text data. Intercoder reliability can be used as a proxy for the validity of constructs that emerge from the data.
Education Based Publications

Unleashing Frankenstein’s Monster? The Use of Computers in Qualitative Research.

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene (2004)

H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, pp. 549-593. In S. N. Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, pp. 535-545.

The use of qualitative data analysis software has been increasing in recent years. A number of qualitative researchers have raised questions concerning the effect of such software in the research process. Fears have been expressed that the use of the computer for qualitative analysis may interfere with the relationship between the researcher and the research process itself by distancing the researcher from both the data and the respondent. Others have suggested that the use of a quantitative tool, the computer, would lead to data dredging, quantification of results, and loss of the "art" of qualitative analysis. In this study of 12 qualitative researchers, including both faculty members and graduate students, we have found that these fears are exaggerated. Users of qualitative data analysis software in most cases use the computer as an organizational, time-saving tool and take special care to maintain close relationships with both the data and the respondents. It is an open question, however, whether or not the amount of time and effort saved by the computer enhance research creativity. The research findings are mixed in this area. At issue is the distinction between creativity and productivity when computer methods are used. Computer packages targeted at qualitative and mixed methods researcg data are readily available and the methodology sections of research articles indicate that they are being utilised by some health researchers. The purpose of this article is to draw together concerns which have been expressed by researchers and critics and to place these within the perspective of 'framing' (MacLachlan & Reid, 1994). Here, the focus becomes the frame that these computer programs impose on qualitative data. Inevitably, all data sets are disturbed by the techniques of collection and the conceptual and theoretical frames imposed, but computer framing not only distorts physically but also imposes an often minimally acknowledged frame constructed by the metaphors and implicit ideology of the program. This frame is in opposition to most of the recent changes in qualitative data interpretation, which have emphasised context, thick description and exposure of the minimally disturbed voices of participants.
Education Based Publications

Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research

Ragin, Charles C., Nagel, Joane, & White, Patricia (2004)

National Science Foundation Report

Report generated by a NSF workshop on qualitative research methods. Two main sections: 1) provide a general guidance for developing qualitative research project and 2) recommendations for strengthening qualitative research. This report is organized into two major sections — general guidance for developing qualitative research projects and recommendations for strengthening qualitative research. The intent of the first section of the report is to serve as a primer to guide both investigators developing qualitative proposals and reviewers evaluating qualitative research projects. The second section of the report presents workshop recommendations for designing, evaluating, supporting, and strengthening qualitative research.
Education Based Publications

Designing Qualitative Studies

Patton, Michael Quinn (2001)

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, In Michael Quinn Patton, Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd edition, pp.209-257

Practical guide to study design with good attention to taxonomy of research approaches by purpose and sampling issues.
Education Based Publications

Research Design Issues for Mixed Method and Mixed Model Studies

Tashakkori, Abbas & Teddlie, Charles (1998)

A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, pp. 40-58. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Discusses the concept of triangulation from various perspectives and the variety of approaches to implementing mixed methods research. Builds on Patton’s (1990) discussion of ‘mixed form’ design to a broader model in order to develop a taxonomy for distinguishing various mixed method designs and approaches.
Education Based Publications

Advances in mixed methods research

Bergman, M. M (2008)

London: Sage

Advances in Mixed Methods Research provides an essential introduction to the fast-growing field of mixed methods research. Bergman's book examines the current state of mixed-methods research, exploring exciting new ways of conceptualizing and conducting empirical research in the social and health sciences. Illuminating new ways of conceptualizing and conducting empirical research in the social sciences and humanities, this book contains contributions from some of the world's leading experts on qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. The contributions cover all of the main practical and methodological issues and represent a number of different visions of what mixed methods research is and where it is going. Contributions from the world's leading experts in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches are brought together, clearing the way for a more constructive approach to social research. These contributions cover the main practical and methodological issues and include a number of different visions of what mixed methods research is. The discussion also covers the use of mixed methods in a diverse range of fields, including sociology, education, politics, psychology, computational science and methodology. This book represents an important contribution to the ongoing debate surrounding the use of mixed methods in the social sciences and health research, and presents a convincing argument that the conventional, paradigmatic view of qualitative and quantitative research is outdated and in need of replacement. It will be essential reading for anyone actively engaged in qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research and for students of social research methods. Manfred Max Bergman is Chair of Methodology and Political Sociology at the University of Basel. Very good text wherein the mixed methods approach is coherently developed and its current (and potential) applications are described in clear, useful and interesting ways. I particularly liked the depth of understanding with Bergman demonstrating subtle implications of the advances. For the undergraduate level, I felt this was perhaps too advanced but well worth a read if the mixed methods approach is adopted. Mr Paul Buckley Nursing , Bradford University
1-10 of 42