Early hypotheses about the ways Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) would be integrated into qualitative research lacked the backing of extensive experience. Changing contexts, such as the increasing use of complex teams, raise issues that bring into question earlier assumptions about the role of QDAS in transparency and portability. Using Jackson’s (2014) conception of transparency in motion as a grounding concept, the authors present an exemplar case of the ways one complex qualitative research team made use of QDAS to support interpretive activities in a project that was also geographically far flung. The article concludes with a reconsideration of the notion of transparency, suggesting a more nuanced approach for the future.
BazeleyP.JacksonK. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London, England: SAGE.
2.
BeebeeJ. (2014). Rapid qualitative inquiry: A field guide to team-based assessment. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. (Original work published 2001)
3.
BreslerL.WasserJ. D.HertzogN.LemonsM. (1996). Beyond the lone ranger researcher: Team work in qualitative research. European Journal for Research in Music Education, 7, 13-27.
4.
ClearT.MacDonnellS. (2011). Understanding technology use in global virtual teams: Research methodologies and methods. Information and Software Technology, 53, 994-1011. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.01.011
5.
ClerkeT.HopwoodN. (2014). Doing ethnography in teams: A case study of asymmetries in collaborative research. New York, NY: Springer.
6.
DavidsonJ. (2005a, April). Genre and qualitative research software: New modes of literacy in qualitative research. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
7.
DavidsonJ. (2005b, April). Learning to “read” NVivo projects: Implications for teaching qualitative research. Paper presented at Teaching Qualitative Methods with Qualitative Research Software: A Working Conference for Teachers Using QSR Software Tools, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
8.
DavidsonJ. (2005c, April). Reading “the project”: Qualitative research software and the issue of genre in qualitative research. Paper presented at the Congress on Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
9.
DavidsonJ. (2011, November9). Qualitative research network at UMass Lowell. Brown bag on “giving birth to theory in qualitative research: Adolescents and the sexting continnum.” Available from http://qrfrag.blogspot.com
10.
DavidsonJ. (2014). Sexting: Gender and teens. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
11.
DavidsonJ. (2015, May). Methodological quandaries for qualitative researchers using digital tools. Paper presented at the meeting of the Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
12.
DavidsonJ. (2016, May). Negotiating digital tools on complex research teams: Dilemmas for qualitative research and QDA Software. Paper presented at the meeting of the Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
13.
DavidsonJ.di GregorioS. (2011a). Qualitative research and technology: In the midst of a revolution. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 627-643). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
DavidsonJ.di GregorioS. (2011b). Qualitative research, technology, and global change. In GiardinaM.DenzinN. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the global crisis (pp. 79-96). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
15.
DavidsonJ.HarrisA.PaterniteC.Tusinski-MiofskyK.ThompsonS. (2012, April). Sexting, teens, and education: What teens have to say and the implications for educational policy and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
16.
DavidsonJ.HarrisA.ThompsonS. (2011, September). Sexting, teens, and cybersafety: An international dilemma with powerful implications for educators. Paper presentation at the 23rd annual conference of the Japanese and U.S. Teacher Educator Consortium, University of Massachusetts–Lowell, Lowell.
17.
DavidsonJ.PaulusT.JacksonK. (2016). Speculating on the future of digital tools for qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 22, 606-610. doi:10.1177/1077800415622505
18.
DavidsonJ.ThompsonS.HarrisA. (2014). Art as a tool to read social science data. International Review of Qualitative Research, 7, 184-201.
19.
DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (2008). Introduction. In DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the politics of evidence (pp. 9-51). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
20.
di GregorioS.DavidsonJ. (2008). Qualitative research design for software users. London, England: Open University Press.
21.
DoosM.WilhelmsonL. (2014). Proximity and distance: Phases of intersubjective qualitative data analysis in a research team. Quality & Quantity, 48, 1089-1106. doi:10.1007/s11135-012-9816-y
22.
EricksonK.StullD. (1998). Doing team ethnography: Warnings and advice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
EubanksD.PalanskiM.OlabisiJ.JoinsonA.DoveJ. (2016). Team dynamics in virtual, partially distributed teams: Optimal role fulfillment. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 556-568. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.035
HarrisA.DavidsonJ. (2011, December). Teens, sex, and technology. Presentation at Building a Prevention Frame to Address Teen Sexting Behaviors, a joint conference sponsored by the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office and the University of Massachusetts–Lowell, Lowell.
26.
HarrisA.DavidsonJ. (2014a, March). Lessons for youth professionals from the sexting project. Presentation at the Practitioner Conference of the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office, University of Massachusetts–Lowell, Lowell.
27.
HarrisA.DavidsonJ. (2014b). Teens, sex, and technology: Implications for educational systems and practice. In SalehF.GrudzinskasA.JudgeA. (Eds.), Adolescent sexual behavior in the digital age: Considerations for clinicians, legal professionals and educators (pp. 262-292). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28.
HarrisA.DavidsonJ.LetourneauE.PaterniteC.MiofshkyK. T. (2013). Building a prevention framework to address teen “sexting” behaviors. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
29.
HarthornB. (2011). Methodological challenges posed by emergent nanotechnologies and cultural values. In Hesse-BiberS. (Ed.), The handbook of emergent technologies in social research (pp. 65-88). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
HaythornthwaiteC. (2005). Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1079-1092.
31.
Hesse-BiberS. (2011). Emergent technologies in social research: Pushing against the boundaries of research practice. In Hesse-BiberS. (Ed.), The handbook of emergent technologies in social research (pp. 3-22). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
JacksonK. (2010, May). The problem of segregated communities of practice among mixed methods researchers. Paper presented at the International Congress on Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
33.
JacksonK. (2014, May). Qualitative data analysis software, visualizations, and transparency: Toward an understanding of transparency in motion. Paper presented at the Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis conference, Surrey, England.
34.
JarzabkowskiP.BednarekR.CabantousL. (2015). Conducting global team-based ethnography: Methodological challenges and practical methods. Human Relations, 68, 3-33. doi:10.1177/0018726714535449
35.
KinzieJ.MagoldaP.KezarA.KuhG.HinkleS.WhittE. (2007). Methodological challenges in multi-investigator multi-institutional research in higher education. Higher Education, 54, 469-482. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9007-7
LungeanuA.HuangY.ContractorN. (2014). Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance. Journal of Informatics, 8, 59-70. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.006
38.
PaulusT.LesterJ.DempsterP. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research. London, England: SAGE.
39.
PaulusT.WoodsideM.ZieglerM. (2008). Extending the conversation: Qualitative research as dialogic collaborative process. The Qualitative Report, 13, 226-243.
40.
PaulusT.WoodsideM.ZieglerM. (2010). “I tell you, it’s a journey, isn’t it?” understanding collaborative meaning making in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 852-862. doi:10.1177/1077800410383124
41.
SandersC.CuneoC. (2010). Social reliability in qualitative team research. Sociology, 44, 325-343. doi:10.1177/0038038509357194
42.
WasserJ. D. (1998). Working in heterogeneous implementation teams—thinking through the role of the qualitative researcher. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.
43.
WasserJ. D.BreslerL. (1996). The interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration among teams of qualitative researchers. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5-15.
44.
WoodsM.PaulusT.AtkinsD.MacklinR. (2016). Advancing qualitative research using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice in published studies using ATLAS.ti and NVivo, 1994-2013. Social Science Computing Review, 34. doi:10.1177/0894439315596311
