Import code book hyperresearch software#
Import code book hyperresearch windows#

Import code book hyperresearch windows#

for most contemporary users the interface should resemble modern Windows programs, while the latter will depend on the choice of icons and their textual description. The former will depend on your familiarity with its graphical outlook, i.e. That kind of userfriendliness depends on the clarity of its menu structure, your familiarity with its overall structure and the intelligibility of its graphics.

Your learning curve of a program depends at least partially on the question of the intelligibility of its user interface.

There are at least three reasons, why you should seriously consider the intelligibility and user friendliness of software: The ergonomics of a program might not be the most essential criterion for the choice of a program, but in some cases it may very well be one criterion. Below table overviews the basic technical features of the programs.

Most contemporary CAQDAS with the exception of HyperRESEARCH, which is indigenous to the Apple Mac-OS, but also features a Windows version, and TAMS, which can only be used with Mac-OS and Linux, are built for Microsoft's Windows platform. However, Microft Word, which has been suggested as a CAQDAS substitute ( La Pelle 2004), in the fewest cases will be the most suitable substitute. In many cases, more specialized programs, such as fs/QCA for ('Fuzzy Set') Comparative Analysis, or more general programs such as spreadsheets or search aides such as Google Desktop Search will be better suited for your research than CAQDAS. Some (but never all) of the functions that CAQDAS perform equally well Not usually considered QDA software, as many of these progrmas fulfil This review explictly aims to include also software, which is It is finishes with an assessment of their stability and speed, statistical functions, and a review of their idiosyncrasies and some methodological affinities. To facilitate thisĭecision, some of these programs have been included in the comparison.Īfter reviewing technical and ergonomic features of the softwares, their suitability for different forms of textual and multimediaĭata, this comparison follows the conceptualization of the main CAQDASįunctions, as they have been identified by Weitzman and Miles ( 1995): Searches, coding strategies, and theory visualization networks. Or more specialized programs, such as Transana.

Import code book hyperresearch software#

If you require only someĬAQDAS functions, you might be better off with general purpose software Specifically developed as all-purpose CAQDAS. Also, keep in mind that some qualitative approaches might be served better by software not The following pages might assist you in this decisions, as will other software reviews and the developers' pages, which can be found here.

Once the methodology is chosen, you can identify the tasks a software should ideally perform to support this methodology. It is therefore essential to decide upon one's methodology, before a decision on a specific software can be made. I would even go further and suggest that CAQDAS affinities with certain methodologies may steer the analyst subconsciously towards these methodologies.

Lewins & Silver 2004: 3), who argue that CAQDAS cannot decide about a methodological approach. Steep, even peer group support might not outweigh the advantages aīetter fit for your methodology might have.Įlsewhere I have followed others (e.g. Since the learning curve for almost all CAQDAS is Even if the CAQDASĪvailable to you might support your chosen methodology, classical pathĭependence theory ( David 1985) cautions us against choosing a program solely on the basis that it is available at one's institution. Specific methodologies might require a specific CAQDAS, which may notĪlways be the program most widely available. As I have demonstrated elsewhere ( Koenig 2004), These are not simple differences of taste. Although it is true that all CAQDAS programs fulfill similar tasks ( Lewins & Silver 2004: 3ff Weitzman and Miles 1995), at the same time there are some substantial differences between the different packages ( Heimgartner 2005 Lewins & Silver 2004 Lewis 2004).