Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: a comparison of NVivo and Leximancer
By Popi Sotiriadou, Jessie Brouwers, T. Le. 2014
506 citations recorded by the source corpus.
As the use and availability of qualitative software analysis tools increase, so does ambiguity regarding the choice of the most appropriate software in sport management research. This paper uses NVivo and Leximancer to analyse the same set of data derived from interviews with sport management experts on high performance sport to showcase the differences in findings depending on the type of software used. The findings alert sport management and social science researchers to the importance of closely examining the choice of software for qualitative data analysis. Researchers may base their decision on aspects such as the type and size of data set, their competence and skills in data interpretation and the level of engagement with data analysis they plan on undertaking. This paper discusses the implications for researchers in the sport management field using these tools for data analysis and highlights the value that software can add to the research effort.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Gender Studies, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/14c0e8a29686f03c7e1dfbb745f91588eb5c86b3
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
In Gender Studies
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- A big data exploration of the informational and normative influences on the helpfulness of online restaurant reviews (2021, methodology): “Notably, the program’s algorithm is based upon an iterative process of seeding word definitions from frequencies and co-occurrences of words (called concepts) within blocks of text (Smith & Humphreys, 2006; Sotiriadou et al., 2014).”