Digital Tools (Visual Representation)

This graphic represents many of the conversations noted from class.  As we discuss the potential and possible uses of digital tools in (qualitative) research, the process of research and where each tools plays a part in an image that keeps popping into my head. I finally had to create a skeleton adopted from several sources including (Coffey, Holbrook & Atkinson, 1996; Davidson & di Gregorio 2011; Gratton & O’Donnell, 2011; Matthews & Cramer, 2008; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Paulus, Lester, & Dempster, 2013) as well as in-class discussion notes.

When we talk about information and research, there are really two different types of data; there is researcher generated information and there is also participant generated information.  For example Silverman writes that certain kinds of data could not exist without the researchers’ facilitation, these include focus groups or interviews (2011). So as you look over the image below consider the types of information and how different entities can facilitate or create meaning.

When recording field notes and conversations – you can go old school with a pen & paper, you can jazzy it up with video or audio recordings, or new tech such as audio recording pens (e.g. LiveScribe).  The abundance of smart phone applications that allow you to record audio are amazing, regardless of platform.  This shift and expanse of technological tools means that “new sites of study and ways of engaging with participants” (Hine, 2008, as cited by Paulus, Lester & Dempster, 2013, p. 70), is growing ever prominent and accessible.  So not only do we have new ways of constructing meaning but we can also gather information across greater distances (e.g. Gratton & O’Donnell, 2011 and Matthews & Cramer, 2008).  Through archival tools and web conferencing, new sites for study are being revealed to educational researchers.

These ideas of creating knowledge through data reminded me of a classroom discussion on revamping Miles and Huberman’s (1994) list of computer uses in qualitative research.  This idea of shifting from traditional ethnographies to netnographies, using “ethnographic approaches to study unique digital spaces” (Paulus, Lester & Dempster, 2013, p. 76), really pushed me to think about online communities, social networks, virtual worlds, and serious games as new research environments.

 

References:

Coffey, A., Holbrook, B. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and representations. Sociological Research Online 1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/1/1/4.html.

Davidson, J. & di Gregorio, S. (2011). Qualitative research and technology: In the midst of a revolution. In Denzin & Lincoln (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edition. (pp. 627-643). London, UK: Sage.

Gratton, M. & O’Donnell, S. (2011). Communication technologies for focus groups with remote communities: a case study of research with First Nations in Canada. Qualitative Research 11(2) 159-175.

Matthews, J. & Cramer, E.P. (2008). Using technology to enhance qualitative research with hidden populations. The Qualitative Report 13(2), 301-315.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London, UK: SAGE

Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. (2013). Digital tools for qualitative research.  London, UK: Sage.

Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text, and Interaction. London, UK: Sage.