ABSTRACT

Transcription is an integral part of much qualitative data analysis, yet rarely has it received close attention in debates over the use (or non-use) of computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS). This article draws upon a mixed-methods study that involved transcribing conversational interviews with carers, third sector practitioners and policy-makers, to explore how computer assisted transcription software (CATS) can affect data and its analysis in ways unanticipated at the outset by researchers. From an agential realist perspective, the article outlines three steps towards making principled choices over the use (or non-use) of CAQDAS in qualitative data analysis. These steps require navigating extremes associated with technological determinism; that we re-think our understandings of the software-data-researcher relationship; and that we move away from asking how well a given CAQDAS can ‘perform’ and towards exploring what a given CAQDAS can (and cannot) do.

摘要

转录是许多定性数据分析不可或缺的一部分，但在关于使用（或不使用）计算机辅助定性数据分析软件(CAQDAS) 的辩论中很少受到密切关注。本文借鉴了一项混合方法研究，该研究涉及转录与护理人员、第三部门从业者和政策制定者的对话访谈，以探索计算机辅助转录软件如何(CATS) 会以研究人员一开始未预料到的方式影响数据及其分析。从代理现实主义的角度来看，本文概述了在定性数据分析中对使用（或不使用）CAQDAS 做出原则性选择的三个步骤。这些步骤需要克服与技术决定论相关的极端情况；我们重新思考我们对软件-数据-研究者关系的理解；我们不再询问给定的 CAQDAS 可以“执行”到什么程度，而是探索给定的 CAQDAS 可以（和不能）做什么。