Dedoose Publications

PUBLICATIONS

Dedoose has been field-tested and journal-proven by leading academic institutions and market researchers worldwide. Thousands of prominent researchers across the US and abroad have benefited from early versions of Dedoose in their qualitative and mixed methods work and have laid an outstanding publication and report trail along the way.

Education Based Publications

Focus Groups

Morgan, David L. (2004)

S. N. Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, pp. 263-285. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Written by a long-time authority on focus group, presents a brief history of focus group application up to, and including, information on the variety of current uses across many disciplines. Great section on the uses of focus groups in combination with other methods with a full compare/contrast discussion. Finally, goes into the specifics on ‘how to’ plan and conduct effective group data collection. My own preference (Morgan, 1996) is for a more inclusive approach that broadly defines focus groups as a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. In essence, it is the researcher's interest that provides the focus, whereas the data themselves come from the group interaction. One reason for favoring an inclusive approach is that the exclusive approaches do not really exclude very much. Other than focus groups, the primary categories of group interviews in the existing typologies are things that are manifestly different from focus groups. On the one hand, there are nominal groups and Delphi groups (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), which do not involve actual group interaction. On the other hand, there is the observation of naturally occurring groups, which typically do not involve the researcher in determining the topic of discussion. Thus, little is gained by excluding these categories of data collection because they already fall outside the broad definition of focus groups offered here. Among the more specific criteria that could be used to distinguish focus groups from other types of group interviews, both Frey and Fontana (1989) and Khan and Manderson (1992) assert that focus groups are more formal. In particular, they argue that focus groups are likely to involve inviting participants to the discussion and they also stress the distinctive role of the moderator. Although there is no doubt that group interviews vary along a continuum from more formally structured interaction to more informal gatherings, I do not believe it is possible to draw a line between formal and informal group interviews in a way that defines some as focus groups and others as something else. Instead, I find it more useful to think that the degree of formal structure in a focus group is a decision that the research makes according to the specific purposes of the research project. In particular, the use of either a more formal or a less formal approach will depend on the researcher's goals, the nature of the research setting, and the likely reaction of the participants to the research topic. Among the other criteria that have been offered as distinguishing features of focus groups are their size and the use of specialized facilities for the interview (McQuarrie, 1996). Again, however, these supposedly exclusive criteria are mostly a matter of degree. Who is to say when a group is too large or too small to be called a focus group or when a setting is too casual to qualify? Rather than generate pointless debates about what is or is not a focus group, I prefer to treat focus groups as a "broad umbrella" or "big tent" that can include many different variations. Of course, this approach requires researchers to make choices about doing focus groups one way rather than another. Fortunately, this need to make explicit decisions about data collection strategies is a familiar concern to social scientists, and it comes under the heading of "research design." As social scientists have gained increasing experience with focus groups, we also have produced insights into the situations in which different research designs are either more or less likely to be effective (e.g., Krueger, 1993; Morgan, 1992.a, 1995).
Education Based Publications

Quantitative and Qualitative Inquiry in Educational Research: Is There a Paradigmatic Difference Between Them?

Niglas, Katrin (1999)

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland, September 22-25

Discusses the distinctions between qualitative and quantitative methodological approaches in educational research. Seeks to compare and contrast the characteristics and assumptions of these approaches toward dispelling the notion of paradigm ‘wars’ and in the interest of improving the quality of research in education.
Education Based Publications

What Good is Polarizing Research into Qualitative and Quantitative?

Ercikan, Kadriye & Roth, Wolff-Michael (2006)

Educational Researcher, 352(5), 12-23

The authors argue against a polarization between qualitative and quantitative methods and the associated polarization between “subjective” and “objective” evidence. In doing so, they encourage an understanding of the meaninglessness of such a distinction and the value of taking a more integrated approach. Finally, they map a more “continuous” perspective to addressing the needs of a particular research question and the study design and methodological decisions that follow.
Education Based Publications

Doing Qualitative Research - A Comprehensive Guide

Silverman, David & Marvasti, Amir (2008)

Sage Publications

Research students still lack a singly authored, hands-on, practical guide to the business of doing qualitative research, writing it up, and making use of it. This is what this book sets out to do. Much more than other methodology tens, it aims to teach the skills of qualitative research in the context of the practical problems that face the novice researcher. To this end, it combines telling examples of students' experiences in the field, case studies of relevant qualitative research, summaries of key skills, and exercises to test your knowledge.
Education Based Publications

Unleashing Frankenstein’s Monster? The Use of Computers in Qualitative Research.

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene (2004)

H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, pp. 549-593. In S. N. Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, pp. 535-545.

The use of qualitative data analysis software has been increasing in recent years. A number of qualitative researchers have raised questions concerning the effect of such software in the research process. Fears have been expressed that the use of the computer for qualitative analysis may interfere with the relationship between the researcher and the research process itself by distancing the researcher from both the data and the respondent. Others have suggested that the use of a quantitative tool, the computer, would lead to data dredging, quantification of results, and loss of the "art" of qualitative analysis. In this study of 12 qualitative researchers, including both faculty members and graduate students, we have found that these fears are exaggerated. Users of qualitative data analysis software in most cases use the computer as an organizational, time-saving tool and take special care to maintain close relationships with both the data and the respondents. It is an open question, however, whether or not the amount of time and effort saved by the computer enhance research creativity. The research findings are mixed in this area. At issue is the distinction between creativity and productivity when computer methods are used. Computer packages targeted at qualitative and mixed methods research data are readily available and the methodology sections of research articles indicate that they are being utilised by some health researchers. The purpose of this article is to draw together concerns which have been expressed by researchers and critics and to place these within the perspective of 'framing' (MacLachlan & Reid, 1994). Here, the focus becomes the frame that these computer programs impose on qualitative data. Inevitably, all data sets are disturbed by the techniques of collection and the conceptual and theoretical frames imposed, but computer framing not only distorts physically but also imposes an often minimally acknowledged frame constructed by the metaphors and implicit ideology of the program. This frame is in opposition to most of the recent changes in qualitative data interpretation, which have emphasized context, thick description and exposure of the minimally disturbed voices of participants.
Education Based Publications

A Systems Approach to Qualitative Data Management and Analysis

MacQueen, Kathleen M. & Milstein, Bobby (1999)

Field Methods, 11(1): 27-39

Introduces and illustrates a systematic approach to qualitative data management from a database architecture perspective. Discusses four main types of information collected in qualitative research: information about primary sources, information from primary sources, secondary information generated by coders, and information about the coders and how quantitative approaches can be used to evaluate qualitative analysis.
Education Based Publications

Text Analysis - Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

H Russell Bernard, Gery W. Ryan (1998)

Education Based Publications

Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Insights into Design and Analysis Issues

Lieber, Eli (2009)

UCLA

Education Based Publications

Assisted Housing Mobility and the Success of Low-Income Minority Families: Lessons for Policy, Practice and Future Research

Briggs, X. Margery, T (2006)

In the social policy field, where complex goals and seemingly intractable problems often make it hard to generate useful answers about what works, there is an understandable tendency to label demonstration programs either "successes" or "failures." In the context of assisted housing mobility initiatives, such as the court-ordered Gautreaux desegregation program and the federal Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration, the narrow question is: Did they "prove" that using housing vouchers to relocate poor minority families "works" or not? As housing researchers with experience in both policy development and evaluation, we care deeply about what works, but we think this narrow framing is the wrong way to think about research demonstrations and policy experimentation more generally.
Education Based Publications

Beliefs About Treatment of Mental Health Problem Among Cambodian American Children and Parents

Daley, Tamara (2005)

Social Science & Medicine

1-10 of 63