Beginning in September 2019, we will send out a monthly PECE newsletter.
Be sure to sign-up to receive development updates, tips, and to learn how others are using PECE! 
Have a question about PECE? Be sure to post it on the PECE Slack Channel.

mikefortun Annotations

Mike Fortun's picture
In response to:

TECHNO: (How) are technological infrastructures said to shape, enable and constrain collaboration at this stage of the research process?

Thursday, August 8, 2019 - 11:20am

because of CAQDAS privileging of grounded theory, "A tendency toward epistemological positivism provides conditions for further misunderstandings around the software’s capabilities by substituting methodological rigor for descriptions of a particular aspect of the research process. Rigor is treated not as the product of concise conceptual thought, ideas, and examination of research materials within a particular research framework but as something provided by a software tool able to produce replicable data sets." p. 184

Creative Commons Licence

EPISTEMIC CULTURES: (How) are epistemic cultures said to shape collaboration at this stage of the research process?

Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - 8:54pm

"grounded theory is the dominant methodology for CAQDAS users—who mention it on average 30 times more frequently than sociologists as a whole. Discourse analysis and frame analysis are less frequent in CAQDAS research than in" (p. 182) "sociological research in general, with grounded theory mentioned 300 times more fre-quently than frame analysis." p. 183

Creative Commons Licence

DISCURSIVE RISKS: What are the epistemic assumptions of the analyst of collaboration?

Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - 8:50pm

a nice analysis here that CAQDAS programs embody a kind of language ideology (not their term) or risk certain kinds of readings.  in this casee the analysis is not of collaboration but of "qualitative analysis" itself, and particularly as performed with or by (the preposition is kind of crucial) CAQDAS packages.  So one risk or ideological effect is that "qualitative analysis" becomes one thing, and namely the opposite of or everything that's not quantative.

Another risk/ideological effect is they "create the impression that analysis is actually done by the software. Here, the wow factor kicks in—rather than emphasizing that CAQDAS is a tool for organizing data...not a method of analysis, this view implies that the better the researcher is at working the program, the better the analysis." (p. 182) i.e. it conflates the tool with the analysis.

CAQDAS also set up a structural parallel or similarity between

quantitative:statistics::qualitative:codes 

"one that turns data into statistics and the other that turns data into descriptive codes." p182

this annotation also raises questions about our own codes: in readng this article I chose this analytic and question becuase it seemed the best "fit" -- but it runs on its own conflations, or maybe iterated differance: the epistemic assumption of the question is the risk in the annotation is an effect of a langage ideology. 

ideology-assumption-risk is the nexus of ab-use...

Creative Commons Licence