Maximizing transparency in a doctoral thesis: the complexities of writing about the use of QSR*NVIVO within a grounded theory study.

This article discusses the challenges of how to provide a transparent account of the use of the software program QSR*NVIVO (QSR, 2000) within a grounded theory framework (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Psychology students are increasingly pursuing qualitative research projects...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Qualitative Research Vol. 4; no. 2; pp. 247 - 266
Autores principales: Bringer JD, Johnston LH, Brackenridge CH
Formato: pictorial tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Sage Publications Inc. Aug2004
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=106682783&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 106682783
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        14687941
        NLI
      jtl: Qualitative Research
      issn: 14687941
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Aug2004
      vid: 4
      iid: 2
      pid: 344
      pub: Sage Publications Inc.
      place: Thousand Oaks, California
    artinfo:
      ui:
        106682783
        106682783
        2004156977
        10.1177/1468794104044434
        106682783
      ppf: 247
      ppct: 19
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Maximizing transparency in a doctoral thesis: the complexities of writing about the use of QSR*NVIVO within a grounded theory study.
      aug:
        au:
          Bringer JD
          Johnston LH
          Brackenridge CH
        affil: University of Gloucestershire, Leisure & Sport Research Unit, Oxstalls Campus, Oxstalls Lane, Gloucester GL2 9HW, UK; ljohnston@glos.ac.uk
      sug:
        subj:
          Data Analysis Software Methods
          Grounded Theory
          Qualitative Studies
          Self Disclosure
      ab: This article discusses the challenges of how to provide a transparent account of the use of the software program QSR*NVIVO (QSR, 2000) within a grounded theory framework (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Psychology students are increasingly pursuing qualitative research projects to such an extent that the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) advise that students should have skill in the use of computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) (Economic and Social Research Council, 2001). Unlike quantitative studies, rigid formulae do not exist for writing-up qualitative projects for doctoral theses. Most authors, however, agree that transparency is essential when communicating the findings of qualitative research. Sparkes (2001) recommends that evaluative criteria for qualitative research should be commensurable with the aims, objectives, and epistemological assumptions of the research project. Likewise, the use of CAQDAS should vary according to the research methodology followed, and thus researchers should include a discussion of how CAQDAS was used. This article describes how the evolving process of coding data, writing memos, categorizing, and theorizing were integrated into the written thesis. The structure of the written document is described including considerations about restructuring and the difficulties of writing about an iterative process within a linear document.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        pictorial
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N