The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: a comparison of NVivo and Leximancer
Open accessAbstract
As the use and availability of qualitative software analysis tools increase, so does ambiguity regarding the choice of the most appropriate software in sport management research. This paper uses NVivo and Leximancer to analyse the same set of data derived from interviews with sport management experts on high performance sport to showcase the differences in findings depending on the type of software used. The findings alert sport management and social science researchers to the importance of closely examining the choice of software for qualitative data analysis. Researchers may base their decision on aspects such as the type and size of data set, their competence and skills in data interpretation and the level of engagement with data analysis they plan on undertaking. This paper discusses the implications for researchers in the sport management field using these tools for data analysis and highlights the value that software can add to the research effort.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
(2008) · Biostatistics and Microbiology: A Survival Manual · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77282-0_6 · Cited by 17,371
(2010) · Sociology for Pharmacists · doi:10.4324/9780203381175_chapter_9 · Cited by 14,152
(2013) · Cited by 12,072
Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/bf00988593 · Cited by 11,133
(2013) · Law and Society · doi:10.1201/b16015-6 · Cited by 6,542
Bryman, A. E., Bell, E., Reck, J., & Fields, J. (2001) · Cited by 4,059
Making sense of qualitative data
Coffey, A. J., & Atkinson, P. (1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,855
Silverman, D. (2024) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781036233358 · Cited by 3,553
Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2007) · Cited by 2,522
Cited by
Klarin, A. (2024) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.13031 · Cited by 292
Circular value chain blind spot – A scoping review of the 9R framework in consumption
Hunger, T., Arnold, M., & Ulber, M. (2024) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140853 · Cited by 42
What does it mean to conduct participatory research with Indigenous peoples? A lexical review
Dadich, A., Moore, L., & Eapen, V. (2019) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7494-6 · Cited by 39
Kothari, A., Bruxner, G., Callaway, L., & Dulhunty, J. M. (2022) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-022-04738-4 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Sotiriadou, P., Brouwers, J., & Le, T.-A.
- Venue
- Annals of Leisure Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-04-03
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 218-234
- ISSN
- 1174-5398 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-6816
- OpenAlex
- W1964189636
- Cited by
- 454
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 88.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: a comparison of NVivo and Leximancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/11745398.2014.902292
- The paper
- Sotiriadou, P., Brouwers, J., & Le, T.-A. (2014). Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: a comparison of NVivo and Leximancer. Annals of Leisure Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2014.902292
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
