Note, however, that this book reviews older versions of both programs, so that you should make an up-to-date comparison yourself. If you are wondering which dimensions of comparison might be relevant for you, check out the following book: Lewins, Ann & Silver, Christina (2007): Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide. sharing of data, collaborative coding etc). If you work in a team, check especially for team-functionality (i.e. But there are probably other important differences depending on the type of analysis one wants to make. What makes me think that MaxQDA is better is its more intuitive (and prettier) user interface and such things as its visualization tools.Īpart from the better pdf-support, another advantage of Atlas.ti might be the better integration of audio transcription (and what they call “Text-to-Media Synchronization”). I have not actually worked with it (while I’ve used Atlas.ti for years). But my judgement is based only on a quick look at the trial version of MAXqda. Apart from this difference, which is essential for me, (and putting asside the rather restrictive license terms which allow you to install the student license on one single computer only) my personal impression is that MAXqda is the better software package at this point. Although MAXqda does now support pdf files, it only supports coding of text in these pdf-files, which renders it useless for coding scanned fieldnotes. I myself still work with Atlas.ti simply because it allows me to scan my handwritten field into pdf-files and code them like images. There are basically two alternatives: MaxQDA and Atlas.ti. Perhaps you have some recomendations?” So here’s my answer: I just received an email from a colleague asking me a simple question that is probably relevant vor many people: “A student of mine is looking for a good qualitative software program to analyze interviews.
0 kommentar(er)
