History of CAQDAS
Origins

Text analysis

General Inquirer (content analysis)

Word processors and desktop
computers 1984 onwards

Dedicated programs - Code-and-retrieve

The Ethnograph

Hypersoft
Code-and-retrieve
Coding - mark text with code
 Code list
 Retrieve - show all text coded the same
way.
 Some complex retrievals - text coded with
two codes.

Command line vs WIMP
Command line e.g. ‘Moveto 4,41’
 Complaints

Hard to use
 Remote from data

WIMP = Windows, icon, menu, pointer.
 Made use much easier

Current best selling programs
NVivo
 Atlas.ti
 MAXQDA
 HyperRESEARCH
 QDAMiner
 But still small companies cf. Microsoft.


NVivo sold 400,000, vs Millions for Office
New functions – Theory
Building









Memos
Search (text and codes)
Charts
Link with quants data
Textual analysis tools
Relations
Word and pdf documents
Images, video and audio
GIS
Debates about CAQDAS
Distant from data
 Too easy to move to quantify
 Dominance of code and retrieve

Vs narrative thread
 Vs postmodern variation

Fragmentation and decontextualisation
 Coding loses interaction in focus groups
 Needs time and resources to learn

Advantage of CAQDAS
Faster and more efficient
 Helps explanations (eg. Use face sheet
data)
 Supports transparency
 Code trees encourage looking at
connections
 Avoids anecdotalism - can check
frequency

Key functions
Input rtf/doc/pdf and display
 Code schemes – some hierarchical
 Retrieval
 Examine coded text
 Memoing
 Diagrams
