Abstract
The authors conduct an exposé on the deterministic denunciations of Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) and how citation errors keep these criticisms alive. They use a zombie metaphor to describe more than two decades of battling these seemingly mindless assessments of QDAS that keep coming –despite their decay – and simply will not die. Focusing exclusively on the criticism of separation/distancing, which alleges that the computer and the software interfere with the researcher’s familiarity with the data, the authors trace one current strand of this criticism through a literature genealogy. Three citation errors (half-truth, proxy, and hearsay) are identified to help dismantle the criticism that QDAS inevitably and negatively interferes with the researchers’ connection to the data. The article concludes with a reckoning about the role of QDAS experts in perpetuating these citation errors and provides four specific recommendations for all qualitative researchers; suggestions that amount to a more viable avenue for pursuing a cure.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Default journal |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 6 2018 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- ATLAS.ti
- CAQDAS
- Citation Error
- Distancing
- Literature Genealogy
- NVivo
- QDAS
- Qualitative Data Analysis Software
- Separation
- Zombie
Disciplines
- Discourse and Text Linguistics
- Other Arts and Humanities
- Other Rhetoric and Composition
- Publishing
- Scholarly Publishing
- Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
- Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education
- Technical and Professional Writing
Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS