Showing posts with label QDAS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label QDAS. Show all posts

Sunday, 22 December 2024

A role for qualitative methods in researching Twitter data on a popular science article's communication

Written for scholars and students who are interested in using qualitative research methods for research with small data, such as tweets on X.


Myself, Dr Corrie Uys, Dr Pat Harpur and Prof Izak van Zyl's open-access paper, 'A role for qualitative methods in researching Twitter data on a popular science article's communication' identifies several potential qualitative research contributions in analysing small data from microblogging communications:

 

Qualitative research can provide a rich contextual framing for how micro-practices (such as tweet shares for journal articles...) relate to important social dynamics (... like debates on paradigms within higher-level social strata in the Global Health Science field) plus professionals' related identity work. Also, in-depth explorations of microblogging data following qualitative methods can contribute to the research process by supporting meta-level critiques of missing data, (mis-) categorisations, and flawed automated (and manual) results.


Published in Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics journal's special topic, Network Analysis of Social Media Texts, our paper responds to calls from Big Data communication researchers for qualitative analysis of online science conversations to better explore their meaning. We identified a scholarly gap in the Science Communication field regarding the role that qualitative methods might play in researching small data regarding micro-bloggers' article communications. Although social media attention assists with academic article dissemination, qualitative research into related microblogging practices is scant. To support calls for the qualitative analysis of such communications, we provided a practical example:


Mixed methods were applied for better understanding an unorthodox, but popular, article (Diet, Diabetes Status, and Personal Experiences of Individuals with Type 2 diabetes Who Self-Selected and Followed a Low Carbohydrate High Fat diet) and its Twitter users' shares over two years. Big Data studies describe patterns in micro-bloggers' activities from large sets of data. In contrast, this small data set was analysed in NVivo™ by me (a pragmatist), and in MAXQDA™ by Corrie (a statistician). As part of the data preparation and cleaning, a comprehensive view of hyperlink sharing and conversations was developed, which quantitative extraction alone could not support. For example, through neglecting the general publication paths that fall outside listed academic publications, and related formal correspondence (such as academic letters, and sharing via open resources).


My multimodal content analysis found that links related to the article were largely shared by health professionals. Its popularity related to its position as a communication event within a longstanding debate in the Health Sciences. This issue arena sees an emergent Insulin Resistance (IR) paradigm contesting the dominant “cholesterol” model of chronic disease development. Health experts mostly shared this article, and their profiles reflected support for the emergent IR paradigm. We identified that these professionals followed a wider range of deliberation practices, than previously described by quantitative SciComm Twitter studies. Practices ranged from being included as part of a lecture-reading list, to language localisation in translating the article's title from English to Spanish, and study participants mentioning being involved. Contributing under their genuine identities, expert contributors carried the formal norms for civil communication into the scientific Twitter genre. There were no original URL shares from IR critics, suggesting how sharing evidence for an unconventional low-carbohydrate, healthy fats approach might be viewed as undermining orthodox identities. However, critics did respond with pro-social replies, and constructive criticism linked to the article's content, and its methodological limitations.

 

The statistician's semantic network analysis (SNA) confirmed that terms used by the article's tweeters related strongly to the article's content, and its discussion was pro-social. A few prominent IR individual advocates and organisations shared academic links to the article repeatedly, with its most influential tweeters and sharers being from England and South Africa. In using Atlas.ti and MAXQDA's tools for automated sentiment analysis, the statistician found many instances where sentiment was inaccurately described as negative when it should have been positive. This suggested a methodological limitation of quantitative approaches, such as QDAS, in (i) accurately analysing microblogging data. The SNA also uncovered concerns with (ii) incorrect automated counts for link shares. Concerns i & ii indicate how microblogging statistics may oversimplify complex categories, leading to inaccurate comparisons. In response, close readings of microblogging data present a distinct opportunity for meta-critique. Qualitative research can support critiques of microblogging data sources, as well as its use in QDAS. A lack of support for static Twitter data spreadsheet analysis was concerning.


Meta-inferences were then derived from the two methods' varied claims above. These findings flagged the importance of contextualising a health science article's sharing in relation to tweeters' professional identities and stances on what is healthy. In addition, meta-critiques spotlighted challenges with preparing accurate tweet data, and their analysis via qualitative data analysis software. Such findings suggest the valuable contributions that qualitative research can make to research with microblogging data in science communication.


The manuscript's development history

In 2020, Dr Pat Harpur and I selected an outlier IR scientific publication based on its unusually high Twitter popularity. At that time, the editorial, 'It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet' had been tweeted about over 3,000 times (now nearing 4,000 according to Altmetric!). However analysing this highly popular outlier stalled after its static export in qualitative data analysis software proved unsuitable for efficient coding. The large quantum of tweet data also proved very difficult to analyse. Accordingly, we shifted focus to a popular article that had been shared as an episode of a broader, long-running IR versus cholesterol debate. Even with its relatively small volume of tweets, organising this data for qualitative analysis proved challenging. For example, it was necessary to refine the Python extraction code, while cross-checks of static vs Twitter search results necessitated the capture of “missing” conversations.


We originally developed a multimodal analysis of these tweets, which focused on their relationship to Twitter user's profiles, potentially reflecting a wide range of communication goals. Our manuscript was submitted in 2022 to Science Communication, where Professor Susanna Priest kindly gave in-depth feedback on changing the original manuscript's contribution to a methodological one. We tackled this through developing a rationale for qualitative research with small data in the majorly revised article, which Dr Corrie Uys did a semantic network analysis for, while I revisited the social semiotic analysis.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about our article, please comment below.


Acknowledgements

Funding is scarce, and often non-existent, for South African social media research projects. The article is the fifth in the Academic Free Speech and Digital Voices theme, thanks to The Noakes Foundation’s ongoing support. We appreciate Jana Retief and Jayne Bullen's assistance with related funding applications, plus the launch at Younglings Africa's Social Media Internet Laboratory for Research (SMILR) in 2019. The authors also appreciate the Cape Peninsula University of Technology and the Department of Higher Education for providing additional internal funding.

The authors would like to thank Younglings Africa's founder, Alwyn van Wyk, and all the SMILR project team members who assisted us: Shane Abrahams, Tia Demas, Scott Dennis, Ruan Erasmus, Paul Geddes, Sonwabile Langa, Russell MagayaJoshua Schell and Zander Swanepoel. In addition, we are grateful to the senior software data analysts, Cheryl Mitchell (2021-22) and Darryl Chetty (2019-20), who guided Younglings in their Twitter data extractions, and QDAS import preparations.

We also thank the Design and Research Activities Workgroup in CPUT's Faculty of Informatics and Design, plus the Centre for Communication Studies for feedback on our work-in-progress presentation in 2021.

P.S. Related research manuscript from the team

In reducing our manuscript’s word count, we cut a fair amount of content that we intend to use for our next collaboration: ‘Overcoming qualitative analysis challenges when using small data -  workarounds in exploring Twitter conversations’. Expressions-of-interest from journal editors are most welcome.

Tuesday, 26 September 2023

Noteworthy disparities with four CAQDAS tools: explorations in organising live Twitter (now known as X) data

Written for researchers interested in extracting live X (formerly Twitter) data via Qualitative Data Analysis Software tools

Social Science Computer Review (SSRC) has just published a paper by yours truly, Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Corrie Uys to https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231204163. As the article's title suggests, we focus on the contrasting the Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) packages that currently support live Twitter data imports. 

QDAS tools that support live data extraction are a relatively recent innovation. At the time of our fieldwork, four prominent QDAS provided this: only ATLAS.ti™, NVivo™, MAXQDA™ and QDA Miner™ had Twitter data import functionalities. Little has been written concerning the research implications of differences between their functionalities, and how such disparities might contribute to contrasting analytical opportunities. Consequently, early-stage researchers may experience difficulties in choosing an apt QDAS to extract live data for Twitter academic research.
In response to both methodological gaps, we spent almost a year working on a software comparison to address the research question (RQ) 'How do QDAS packages differ in what they offer for live Twitter data research during the organisational stage of qualitative analysis?'. Comparing their possible disparities seems worthwhile since what QDAS cannot, or poorly, support may strongly impact researchers’ microblogging data, its organisation, and scholars’ potential findings. In the preliminary phase of research, we developed a features checklist for each package, based on their online manuals, product descriptions and forum feedback related to live Twitter imports. This checklist confirmed wide-ranging disparities between QDAS, which were not unexpected since they are priced very differently- ranging from $600 for an ATLAS.ti subscription, to $3,650 for a QDAMiner (as part of the Provalis Research’s ProSuite package, which also includes WordStat 10 & Simstat).

To ensure that each week's Twitter data extractions could produce much data for potential evaluation, we focused on extracting and organising communiqués from the national electrical company, the Electricity Supply Commission (Eskom). ‘Load-shedding’ is the Pan South African Language Board’s word of the year for 2022 (PanSALB, 2022), due to it most frequent use in credible print, broadcast and online media. Invented as a euphemism by Eskom’s public-relations team, load-shedding describes electricity blackouts. Since 2007, planned rolling blackouts have been used in a rotating schedule for periods ‘where short supply threatens the integrity of the grid’ (McGregor & Nuttall, 2013). In the weeks up to, and during, the researchers’ fieldwork, Eskom, and the different stages of loadshedding strongly trended on Twitter. These tweets reflected the depth of public disapproval, discontent, anger, frustration, and general concern.

QDAS packages commonly serve as tools that researchers can use for four broad activities in the qualitative analysis process (Gilbert, Jackson, & di Gregorio, 2014). These are (a) organising- coding sets, families and hyperlinking; (b) exploring - models, maps, networks, coding and text searches; (c) reflecting - through memoing, annotating and mapping; and (d) integrating qualitative data through memoing with hyperlinks and merging projects (Davidson & di Gregorio, 2011; Di Gregorio, 2010; Lewins & Silver, 2014).
Notwithstanding the contrasts in the costs for different QDAS packages, it was still surprising how much the QDAS tools varied for the first activity, (a) ‘organising data’ in our qualitative research project: Notably, the quantum of data extracted for the same query differed, largely due to contrasts in the types and amount of data that the four QDAS could extract. Variations in how each supported visual organisation and thematic analysis also shaped researchers’ opportunities for becoming familiar with Twitter users and their tweet content. 
Such disparities suggest that choosing a suitable QDAS for organising live Twitter data must dovetail with a researcher’s focus: ATLAS.ti accommodates scholars focused on wrangling unstructured data for personal meaning-making, while MAXQDA suits the mixed-methods researcher. QDA Miner’s easy-to-learn user interface suits a highly efficient implementation of methods, whilst NVivo supports relatively rapid analysis of tweet content.
We hope that these findings might help guide Twitter social science researchers and others in QDAS tool selection. Our research has suggested recommendations for these tools developers to follow for potentially improving the user experience for Twitter researchers. Future research might explore disparities in other qualitative research phases, or contrast data extraction routes for a variety of microblogging services.  More broadly,  an opportunity for a methodological contribution exists regarding research that can define a strong rationale for the software comparison method.
The authors greatly appreciate the SSRC's editor, Professor Stephen Lyon, advice on improving our final manuscript. We also thank The Noakes Foundation for its grant AFSDV02- our interdisciplinary software comparison would not have been possible without funding to cover subscriptions to the most extensive versions of MAXQDA Analytics Pro and QDA Miner. All authors are affiliated with the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) and appreciate CPUT's provision of licensed versions of ATLAS.ti.

Please comment below if you have any questions or comments regarding our paper?

Thursday, 22 June 2023

Recommendations for QDAS developers from 'Noteworthy disparities with four CAQDAS tools- explorations in organising live Twitter data', forthcoming

Dr Corrie Uys, Dr Pat Harpur and I are working on a manuscript that explores the research implications of differences in Qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) packages’ support for live Twitter data imports. This paper's software comparison contrasts the four prominent QDAS tools that support such imports, namely ATLAS.ti™, NVivo™, MAXQDA™ and QDA Miner™. We discuss key discrepancies in their use during the organisational phase of qualitative research and address related methodological issues.

Outside the paper's scope, our software comparison also uncovered several suggestions that developers of these QDAS tools might follow to improve the user experience for Twitter researchers:

1 Make tweets easier to sort & link them to their original context 

QDAS typically present a myriad of isolated tweets in one spreadsheet document that seems to divorce tweets from their conversational context. Researchers would benefit from being able to order and sort tweets as data. QDAS should also provide the option to quickly link to the original tweet in Twitter. Only NVivo made it relatively efficient to see the original context of a tweet in a Twitter discussion.

2 Provide more extensive support for modes and Twitter affordances

Linking to the original context with Twitter is particularly important where audio, emoji, font, image, and video modes and Twitter affordances for hashtagging and @mentions disappear. These may not be imported into QDAS spreadsheets as QDAS tools differ widely in the data they extract for Twitter affordances and modes. 

3 Support conversational analysis

Research into Twitter conversations was poorly supported by all four QDAS tools. Each presented a myriad of isolated tweets, with no way to display the original conversational thread. QDAS and Twitter should work together for providing qualitative researchers with ready access to Twitter exchanges. The added benefits of API2 functionality (such as conversation tracking) seem MIA in QDAS. Such integration would seem a useful step for promoting wider research into healthy conversations that Twitter described in 2018 as an important business priority.

4 Provide examples for live Twitter data analysis

QDAS companies that provide Twitter import functionality should provide resources that address not only how to extract data, but also examples of how their software is used in analysing microblogging data. While Twitter is actively encouraging and training academic researchers to transform raw JSON into CSV files for research purposes, QDAS companies seem to provide scant examples for live Twitter data analysis. The online resources they provide could be improved by adding examples. For example, we look forward to seeing how QDAS are used in analysing Twitter conversation threads.

5 Spotlight the black box of Twitter data organisation

QDAS developers could make the ‘black box’ of Twitter data organisation visible by showing a model of the data undergirding the tweets, and also the spreadsheet's data excludes. Researchers could benefit from such an overview for the great deal of Twitter fields that are missing.

6 Missing in extraction

Another black box concerns the process of data extraction from Twitter. While the functionality of running live imports for select criteria is efficient, more information could be shared regarding the context of the extraction. For example, what are the internal and external limits on the maximum number of tweets a QDAS can import.

Do let us know what you think of these suggestions by submitting a comment below, or contacting me.

Total pageviews since 2008's launch =

+ TRANSLATE

> Translate posts into your preferred language

+ SEARCH

> Search travisnoakes.co.za

+ or search by labels (keywords)

research (56) education (43) design (22) nvivo (16) multimodal (9) visual culture (4)

+ or search blogposts by date

+ FOLLOW
+ RELATED ONLINE PRESENCES

> Tweets

> Kudos

> ResearchGate profile
Articles + chapters

> Web of Science


> Social bookmarks + Edublogs listing
diigo education pioneer Find this blog in the education blogs directory

> Pinterest
> Create With Pinterest