Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the Five-Level Qualitative Data Analysis (5LQDA) method for ATLAS.ti as a way to intentionally design methodological approaches applicable to the field of evaluation. To demonstrate my analytical process using ATLAS.ti, I use examples from an existing evaluation of a STEM Peer Learning Assistant program. Aligned with the 5LQDA method for ATLAS.ti, I first contextualize the strategies used to develop the analytical framework (Levels 1 & 2) and then deconstruct the translation process (Level 3) of pairing conceptual strategies with software tools. I then demonstrate the potential of the software in terms of selected and constructed tools (Levels 4 & 5) and discuss the importance of choosing tools aligned with the project's conceptual strategies. This paper acts as a resource to convey the value of integrating 5LQDA for ATLAS.ti throughout qualitative evaluation by engaging in an iterative process that creates opportunity for engagement.

Keywords

data analysis impact evaluation process evaluation qualitative methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Advancing Research Impact in Society. (2020). Perspectives on broader impacts. https://www.researchinsociety.org/perspectives-on-broader-impacts

Bower

K. L.

Lewis

D. C.

Paulus

T. P.

(2021). Using a metaphor to qualitatively explain generative legacy among LGBT older adults. Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794121999008.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Fitzpatrick

J. L.

Sanders

J. S.

Worthen

B. R.

(2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Friese

(2019). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti. SAGE.

Jackson

(2018). Case illustration: A program evaluation of a violence prevention initiative. In Woolf

N. H.

Silver

(Eds.), Qualitative analysis using NVivo: The five level QDA method (pp. 178–194). Routledge.

Kalpokaite

Radivojevic

(2018). Best practice article: Analysing survey data with ATLAS.ti 8 Windows & Mac. https://atlasti.com/2018/10/25/analysing-survey-data-with-atlas-ti-8-windows-mac/

Lewins

Silver

(2009). Choosing a CAQDAS package. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/791/1/2009ChoosingaCAQDASPackage.pdf

McIntyre

(2007). Participatory action research. SAGE.

10.

National Science Foundation. (2014). Perspectives on broader impacts. https://extension2.missouri.edu/media/wysiwyg/Extensiondata/Pro/ARIS/Docs/PerspectivesOnBroaderImpacts.pdf

11.

National Science Board. (2018). Science & engineering indicators 2018: Undergraduate education, enrollment, and degrees in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/561/higher-education-in-science-and-engineering.pdf

12.

Paulus

T. M.

Bennett

A. M

. (2017). “I have a love–hate relationship with ATLAS.ti™”: Integrating qualitative data analysis software into a graduate research methods course. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 40(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1056137

13.

Paulus

T. M.

Varga

M. A.

(2017). Case illustration—A discourse analysis study. In Woolf

N. H.

Silver

(Eds.), Qualitative analysis using Atlas.ti: The five-level QDA method (pp. 166–178). Routledge.

14.

Schmieder

(2018). Case illustration: A thematic analysis to evaluate an education program: Constructing and using a large organizational dataset to identify equity practices in an institutional civil rights database. In Woolf

N. H.

Silver

(Eds.), Qualitative analysis using MAXQDA: The five level QDA method (pp. 177–190). Routledge.

15.

Schwandt

T. A.

(2008). Educating for intelligent belief in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214008316889

16.

Silver

(2017). CAQDAS at a crossroads: Choices, controversies and challenges [Conference paper]. International Symposium on Qualitative Research (pp. 1–13), Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61121-1_1

17.

Sohn

B. K.

(2017) Phenomenology and qualitative data analysis software (QDAS): a careful reconciliation. FORUM: Qualitative Social Research, 18(1), Article 14.

18.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation , 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

19.

Woods

Paulus

Atkins

, et al. (2015) Advancing qualitative research using qualitative dataanalysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice in published studies usingATLAS.ti and NVivo, 1994–2013. Social Science Computer Review, 34(5), 597–617.

20.

Woolf

N. H.

Silver

(2018). Qualitative analysis using Atlas.ti: The five-level QDA method. Routledge.