CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsComputational and Text Analysis MethodsData Analysis and Archiving

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Structuring qualitative enquiry in management and organization research: A dialogue on the merits of using software for qualitative data analysis

Atherton, Andrew, Elsmore, Peter·2007·Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal
DOI 10.1108/17465640710749117
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: To explore the cases for and against the use of computer‐assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) in qualitative organisation and management research. Design/methodology/approach: Reflecting the debate inherent in the questions raised about the use of CAQDAS, a dialogue between the authors is used. Findings: There are risks associated with using CAQDAS without considering its underpinning principles and assumptions about data analysis. If these are considered explicitly as part of a research methodology, then CAQDAS may be a valuable analytical tool. If not, there is risk of distortion and bias in results from the use of CAQDAS. Originality/value: The paper addresses a commonly posed question for qualitative researchers, in a format and structure that is likely to stimulate further debate.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/17465640710749117

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Audi, R. (1999), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  2. Bringer, J., Johnston, L.H. and Brackenridge, C.H. (2004), “Maximising transparency in a doctoral thesis: the complexities of writing about the use of QSR*NVIVO within a grounded theory study”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 247‐65. · DOI
  3. Bringer, J., Johnston, L. and Brackenridge, C. (2006), “Using computer‐assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project”, Field Methods, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 245‐66. · DOI
  4. Carr, E.H. (1964), What is History? (The GM Trevelyan Memorial Lectures), Penguin, London.
  5. Carrithers, M. (1992), Why Humans have Cultures: Explaining Anthropology and Social Diversity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  6. Dohan, D. and Sanchez‐Jankowski, M. (1998), “Using computers to analyse ethnographic field data: theoretical and practical considerations”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, pp. 477‐98. · DOI
  7. Dolan, A. and Ayland, C. (2001), “Analysis on trial”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 377‐89. · DOI
  8. Fielding, N. and Lee, R. (1996), “Diffusion of a methodological innovation: CAQDAS in the UK”, Current Sociology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 242‐58. · DOI
  9. Fielding, N. and Lee, R. (2002), “New patterns in the adoption and use of qualitative software”, Field Methods, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 197‐217. · DOI
  10. Gooding, R. and Kinicki, A. (1995), “Interpreting event causes: the complementary role of categorisation and attribution processes”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 53‐68. · DOI
  11. Grey, C. and Sinclair, A. (2006), “Writing differently”, Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 443‐53. · DOI
  12. Hinchliffe, S. and Crang, M. (1997), “Software for qualitative research: 2. Some thoughts on ‘aiding’ analysis”, Environment & Planning A, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1109‐25. · DOI
  13. Kelle, U. (1996), “Computer‐assisted qualitative data analysis in Germany”, Current Sociology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 2225‐41. · DOI
  14. Mangabeira, W. (1996), “CAQDAS and its diffusion across four countries: national specificities and common themes”, Current Sociology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 191‐205. · DOI
  15. Mangabeira, W., Lee, R. and Fielding, N. (2004), “Computers and qualitative research”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 167‐78. · DOI
  16. Marshall, H. (1993), Not having Families, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  17. Miles, M. and Weitzman, E. (1996), “The state of qualitative data analysis software: what do we need?”, Current Sociology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 206‐24. · DOI
  18. Morison, M. and Moir, J. (1998), “The role of computer software in the analysis if qualitative data: efficient clerk, research assistants or Trojan horse?”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 106‐16. · DOI
  19. Prein, G., Kuckartz, U., Roller, E., Ragin, C. and Kelle, U. (1995), “Introduction: between quality and quantity”, in Kelle, U. (Ed.), Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice, Sage, London.
  20. Tesch, R. (1989), “The correspondence between different kinds of qualitative analysis and different kinds of software”, paper presented at the Symposium on Qualitative Knowledge and Computing, University of Surrey, 11‐12 July.
  21. Webb, C. (1999), “Analysing qualitative data: computerized and other approaches”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 323‐30. · DOI
  22. Kelle, U. (Ed.) (1995), Computer‐Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice, Sage, London.
  23. Kelle, U. and Laurie, H. (1995), “Computer use in qualitative research and issues of validity”, in Kelle, U. (Ed.), Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice, Sage, London.
  24. Marshall, H. (2002), “What do we do when we code data?”, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 56‐70.
  25. Mead, G. (1934), Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  26. Merton, R. (1968), Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press, New York, NY.
  27. Parsons, T. (1954), The Social System, Free Press, New York, NY.
  28. Popper, K. (1994), The Poverty of Historicism, Routledge, London.
  29. Schutz, A. and Luckmann, T. (1984), The Structures of the Life World, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 80

Metadata

Authors
Atherton, A., & Elsmore, P.
Affiliations
University of Lincoln (GB)
ORCID
Atherton, Andrew
Venue
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2007-05-15
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
62-77
ISSN
1746-5648 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/17465640710749117
OpenAlex
W1485489587
Cited by
80
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
14.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management An International Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
Keywords
computer-assisted qualitative analysis, qualitative data analysis software, qualitative data analysis, research methodology, research design

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