BRIGHTENING THE BULB: RESPONSE TO COMMENTARY.

We thank the several commentators for their careful reading of our manuscript (hereafter WJP) and, even more, for their insightful reactions to our work and ideas. The range of issues raised in these four commentaries is quite broad – from specific nitty-gritty details of software design and utilization to deep questions about epistemology, and so range our responses below. In our response, we remark on issues raised at several levels. In all cases our vantage point is with a look to the future. Even though questioned in our original title whether the bulb might be dim, we are also of the view that the bulb’s luminosity will no-doubt increase in the years to come. To put it most succinctly, we are very much of the view that Qualitative Data Analysis Software (hereafter QDAS) is of great value to a wide range of social scientists. We see QDAS as being of use to a spectrum of research investigative styles, from quantitative to qualitative. Applications should expand in conventional mainline social science disciplines, and also within applied and interstitial fields, such as education, and health, and public policy. (The commentaries also reflect upon the QNA paper, of which we are not a part and have not read as of this writing.) As background, readers may find it of value to know that ours is a mixed disciplinary team of authors (1 sociologist; 2 cultural anthropologists); furthermore, the overarching project from which WJP is drawn is a mixed methods research investigation that involved anthropologists, sociologists, and demographers. We would like to think that whatever strengths or weaknesses characterize WJP, they are not attributable simply to the wearing of disciplinary methodological or epistemological blinders. Our motivation for producing the WJP manuscript grew out of our project efforts and our attempts to understand very low fertility in Italy using both (now-conventional?) longitudinal survey data with multivariate methods (see, e.g. Kertzer et al., 2009), and the challenge of dealing with a qualitative arm of the project that drew on extensive in-depth interviews (along with some ethnography) mentioned in the WJP text. We are gratified that commentators see value in our effort. At the same time, the commentaries clearly exhibit a range of opinions about the promise of such software and associated methods (and in our application of it!). We are encouraged that Gibbs agrees with us “… that there is scope for a lot more use of QDAS’s functions….” Junker appears to be less sanguine, remarking that he is “not entirely convinced…” about these new tools. Franzosi’s enlighteningly anecdotal comments seem to align with our own view both positively and negatively (“I share what the authors write about CAQDAS approaches” et seq.). Bazeley concurs that we demonstrate underutilization of the software, but argues that we are “dismissive of small scale qualitative studies….” In responding to these comments, we strive to separate the tool kit itself from the overall method. We remark first on the current state of use of the software tools. Then we offer some further thoughts (not mentioned in WJP originally) about what else we learned in the investigation. We conclude with some general comments about paths to the future.