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.

Medical Based Publications

Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis

MacQueen, Kathleen M., McLellan, Eleanor, Kay, Kelly, & Milstein Bobby (1998)

Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(2): 31-36

One of the key elements in qualitative data analysis is the systematic coding of text (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Miles and Huberman 1994:56). Codes are the building blocks for theory or model building and the foundation on which the analyst’s arguments rest. Implicitly or explicitly, they embody the assumptions underlying the analysis. Given the context of the interdisciplinary nature of research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we have sought to develop explicit guidelines for all aspects of qualitative data analysis, including codebook development. On the one hand, we must often explain basic methods such as this in clear terms to a wide range of scientists who have little or no experience with qualitative research and who may express a deep skepticism of the validity of our results. On the other, our codebook development strategy must be responsive to the teamwork approach that typifies the projects we undertake at CDC, where coding is generally done by two or more persons who may be located at widely dispersed sites. We generally use multiple coders so that we can assess the reliability and validity of the coded data through intercoder agreement measures (e.g., Carey et al. 1996) and, for some projects, as the only reasonable way to handle the sheer volume of data generated. The standardized structure and dynamic process used in our codebook development strategy reflects these concerns. This paper describes (1) how a structured codebook provides a stable frame for the dynamic analysis of textual data; (2) how specific codebook features can improve intercoder agreement among multiple researchers; and (3) the value of team-based codebook development and coding. Origins of the Codebook Format Our codebook format evolved over the course of several years and a variety of projects. The conceptual origins took shape in 1993 during work on the CDC-funded Prevention of HIV in Women and Infants Project (WIDP) (Cotton et al. 1998), which generated approximately 600 transcribed semistructured interviews. One research question pursued was whether women’s narratives about their own heterosexual behavior could help us understand general processes of change in condom use behavior (Milstein et al. 1998). The researchers decided to use the processes of change (POC) constructs from the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska 1984; DiClemente and Prochaska 1985) as a framework for the text analysis. However, the validity of the POC constructs for condom-use behavior was unknown, and a credible and rigorous text coding strategy was needed to establish their applicability and relevance for this context. To do this, the analysts had to synthesize all that was known about each POC construct, define what it was, what it was not, and, most importantly, learn how to recognize one in natural language. Several years earlier, O’Connell (1989) had confronted a similar problem while examining POCs in transcripts of psychotherapy sessions. Recognizing that "coding processes of change often requires that the coder infer from the statement and its context what the intention of the speaker was," O’Connell (1989:106) developed a coding manual that included a section for each code titled "Differentiating (blank) from Other Processes." Milstein and colleagues used O’Connell’s "differentiation" section in a modified format in their analysis of condom behavior change narratives. They conceptualized the "differentiation" component as "exclusion criteria," which complemented the standard code definitions (which then became known as "inclusion criteria"). To facilitate on-line coding with the software program Tally (Bowyer 1991; Trotter 1993), components were added for the code mnemonic and a brief definition, as well as illustrative examples. Thus, the final version of the analysis codebook contained five parts: the code mnemonic, a brief definition, a full definition of inclusion criteria, a full definition of exclusion criteria to explain how the code differed from others, and example passages that illustrated how the code concept might appear in natural language. During the code application phase, information in each of these sections was supplemented and clarified (often with citations and detailed descriptions of earlier work), but the basic structure of the codebook guidelines remained stable.
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

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.
Medical Based Publications

The impact of music therapy versus music medicine on psychological outcomes and pain in cancer patients: a mixed methods study

Joke Bradt, Noah Potvin, Amy Kesslick, Minjung Shim, Donna Radl, Emily Schriver, Edward J. Gracely, Lydia T. Komarnicky-Kocher (2015)

The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of music therapy (MT) versus music medicine (MM) interventions on psychological outcomes and pain in cancer patients and to enhance understanding of patients’ experiences of these two types of music interventions. This study employed a mixed methods intervention design in which qualitative data were embedded within a randomized cross-over trial. Thirty-one adult cancer patients participated in two sessions that involved interactive music making with a music therapist (MT) and two sessions in which they listened to pre-recorded music without the presence of a therapist (MM). Before and after each session, participants reported on their mood, anxiety, relaxation, and pain by means of visual analogue and numeric rating scales. Thirty participants completed an exit interview. The quantitative data suggest that both interventions were equally effective in enhancing target outcomes. However, 77.4 % of participants expressed a preference for MT sessions. The qualitative data indicate that music improves symptom management, embodies hope for survival, and helps connect to a pre-illness self, but may also access memories of loss and trauma. MT sessions helped participants tap into inner resources such as playfulness and creativity. Interactive music making also allowed for emotional expression. Some participants preferred the familiarity and predictability of listening to pre-recorded music. The findings of this study advocate for the use of music in cancer care. Treatment benefits may depend on patient characteristics such as outlook on life and readiness to explore emotions related to the cancer experience.
Medical Based Publications

The health perspectives of Australian adolescents from same-sex parent families: a mixed methods study

S. R. Crouch, E. Waters, R. McNair, J. Power (2014)

Research involving adolescents from same-sex parent families provides an important contribution to the evidence base on their health, well-being and the impact of stigma. To date reports on the perspectives of adolescents with same-sex attracted parents have been limited. This study aimed to describe the multidimensional experiences of physical, mental and social well-being of adolescents living in this context. A mixed methods study of adolescents with same-sex attracted parents comprising of an adolescent-report survey of 10- to 17-year-olds and family interviews with adolescents and their parents. Data were collected in 2012 and 2013 as part of the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families. The findings from qualitative interviews with seven adolescents and responses to an open-ended survey question (n = 16) suggest four themes: perceptions of normality, positive concepts of health, spheres of life (including family, friends and community) and avoiding negativity. The quantitative sample of adolescents with same-sex attracted parents (n = 35) reported higher scores than population normative data on the dimensions general health and family activities within the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) as well as higher on the peer problems scale on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Perceived stigma correlates with lower health and well-being overall. Positive health outcomes are informed by the ways adolescents conceptualize health and how they construct their spheres of life. Peer relationships, and community perspectives of same-sex families, inform perceived stigma and its correlation with poorer health and well-being. Although adolescents see their families as essentially normal they are negatively affected by external societal stigma.
Education Based Publications

Interobserver Agreement, Reliability, and Generalizability of Data Collected in Observational Studies

Mitchell, Sandra K. (1979)

Psychological Bulletin, 86(2): 376-390

Research in developmental and educational psychology has come to rely less on conventional psychometric tests and more on records of behavior made by human observers in natural and quasi-natural settings. Discusses reliability and generalizability in terms of coefficients that reflect the "quality" of data, what defines quality data, and how reports of agreement are insufficient.
Education Based Publications

A Framework for the Study

Creswell, John W. (1994)

J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, pp. 1-19.

How do you decide whether to use a qualitative or a quantitative approach for the design of a research study? How do you write up the results of a study for a scholarly journal article or dissertation? This book addresses these issues by providing a guide to major design decisions, such as deciding a paradigm, stating a purpose for the study, identifying the research questions and hypotheses, using theory, and defining and stating the significance of the study. Research Design is aimed at upper division to graduate level research methods courses that are taught to prepare students to plan and write up independent research studies. In the past two decades, research approaches have multiplied to a point at which investigators or inquirers have many choices. For those designing a proposal or plan, I recommend that a general framework be adopted to provide guidance about all facets of the study, from assessing the general philosophical ideas behind the inquiry to the detailed data collection and analysis procedures. Using an extant framework also allows researchers to lodge their plans in ideas well grounded in the literature and recognized by audiences (e.g., faculty committees) that read and support proposals for research. What frameworks exist for designing a proposal? Although different types and terms abound In the literature, I will focus on three: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. 'The first has been available to the social and human scientist for years, the second has emerged primarily during the last three or four decades, and the last is new and still developing in form and substance. This chapter introduces the reader to the three approaches to research. I suggest that to understand them, the proposal developer needs to consider three framework elements: philosophical assumptions about what constitutes knowledge claims; general procedures of research called strategies of inquhy and detailed procedures of data collection, analysis, and writing. called methods. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches frame each of these elements differently, and these defiances are identified and discussed in this chapter. 'Then typical scenarios that combine the three elements are advanced, followed by the reasons why one would choose one approach over another in designing a study. 'This discussion will not be a philosophical treatise on the nature of knowledge, but it will provide a practical grounding in some of the philosophical ideas behind research.
Education Based Publications

Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research

Creswell, John W. (2009)

Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108

Terrific survey of what’s happening in the mixed methods literature and mixed methods field. Discusses a range of topics raised at the 2008 Mixed Methods Conference and provides a “Map” of these topics broken out across 5 domains: philosophical/theoretical, techniques, nature of mixed methods, the adoption and use of mixed methods, and the politicization of mixed methods. Concludes with a discussion of incorporating mixed methods into other designs, paradigms, general design issues, and advocacy through extramural funding.
Education Based Publications

Developing Data Analysis

Silverman, David (2005)

Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition (pp. 171-187)

Provides a step-by-step guide to all the questions students ask when beginning their first research project. Silverman demonstrates how to learn the craft of qualitative research by applying knowledge about different methods to actual data. He provides practical advice on key issues such as defining ‘originality’ and narrowing down a topic, keeping a research diary and writing a research report, and presenting research to different audiences.
1-10 of 43