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...
