Blismas, N G and Dainty, A R J (2003) Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Panacea or paradox? Building Research & Information, 31(6), pp. 455-463. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Following the methodological debate within the construction management research community in the 1990s, research studies adopting inductive methodologies have increased. Many such projects have adopted computer-aided qualitative data analysis in order both to facilitate the research process and to ensure methodological rigour and transparency. However, there remains a paucity of critical discourse within the construction management research literature about the impact of such approaches on the depth and rigour of the resulting analyses. This paper posits that so-called computer-aided approaches have the potential to affect detrimentally the outcomes of construction management research if researchers see such tools as a panacea for ensuring the rigour and transparency of their work. Paradoxically, computer-aided approaches often restrict rather than aid the analytical process. The paper draws upon the authors' experiences of using a leading package from which a number of considerations for the use of computers in qualitative data analysis are discussed. It is concluded that the research community would benefit from an open debate on whether computer packages really do provide a panacea to the analysis of qualitative data in applied construction management research projects or whether their use merely provides a label with which to convince sceptical positivists of the rigour of inductive research techniques.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | computer-aided; data analysis; inductive; methodology; qualitative research; research methods |
| Index terms: | data analysis, management research, package, transparency, paradox, methodology, qualitative research |
| Subjects: | research methods, professional development, research design and methodology, social theory and frameworks, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here