The Wow Factor

TLDR

Discussions of computer‑assisted qualitative data analysis software often assume it automatically improves research, leading reviews to focus on practical concerns while treating the software itself as the method rather than a tool. The article seeks a clearer understanding of software’s role in research by critically evaluating methodological issues and technological innovations. The authors analyze factors that foster uncritical appraisal, such as unrealistic expectations of software as a methodology, homogenizing qualitative analysis, and using grounded theory to legitimize the tool.

Abstract

Discussions on computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software often begin with the assumption that research will automatically be improved through the use of such software. Consequently, reviews frequently focus on practical concerns with the various software packages. Rather than theoretical considerations of its suitability to the method of analysis, such descriptions frequently treat software as the method of analysis. The following article calls for a clearer understanding of the role of software within research, with critical evaluation focusing on the methodological issues surrounding software use, as well on its technological innovations. The authors examine a number of factors that foster a tendency toward uncritical appraisal—including unrealistic expectations of the software as a methodology in itself; the treatment of qualitative analysis as a single, homogenized category; and the use of grounded theory as a legitimating link between tool and method.