IntroductionThis chapter focuses on tools for supporting the analysis of qualitative data, particularly on software designed for that purpose. The choice of the word "tools" rather than simply "software" in the title of this chapter re fl ects the role of technology in the context of complex intellectual work. "Tools" is a broad term, which could encompass the broad array of theoretical constructs that fall under the mantle of qualitative research, analytical practices used in conjunction with various theoretical approaches, as well as the wide range of supportive technologies that are increasingly used for this speci fi c kind of knowledge work; these dimensions of the term are interrelated, but not uni fi ed. In addition, a variety of technological tools can be used to achieve the same analytic goal, while very different theoretical approaches often involve the same analytical tasks. This complexity leads us to an important point: the most common question from novices regarding the use of software in qualitative research is "which program should I use?" when they would be better served by asking "what analytical tasks will AbstractThe most common question from novices regarding the use of software in qualitative research is "which program should I use?" when they would be better served by asking "what analytical tasks will I be engaged in, and what are the different ways I can leverage technology to do them well?" In this chapter, we fi rst provide an overview of tasks involved in analyzing qualitative data, with a focus on increasingly complex projects, before we turn to the software meant to support these tasks. One genre of software, known as Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS or QDA software), is speci fi cally designed to support qualitative research, as opposed to tools primarily used for the collection of data (such as audio or video recorders), or presentation of fi ndings (such as presentation or modeling software). We brie fl y review the historical development of QDA software-including associated methodological questions and issues-before identifying the increasingly diverse array of expected features and functions in most of the current software programs. We then summarize the "user experience" literature and subsequently discuss the boundaries between cadres of qualitative researchers who do use software, and those who do not. Finally, we address potential directions as these programs are being in fl uenced by Web 2.0 developments.

Development in digital tools in qualitative research over the past 20 years has been driven by the development of qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) and the Internet. This article highlights three critical issues for the future digital tools: (a) ethics and the challenges, (b) archiving of qualitative data, and (c) the preparation of qualitative researchers for an era of digital tools. Excited about the future and the possibilities of new mash-ups, we highlight the need for vibrant communities of practice where developers and researchers are supported in the creation and use of digital tools. We also emphasize the need to be able to mix and match across various digital barriers as we engage in research projects with diverse partners.

In this introduction to the special issue on digital tools for qualitative research, we focus on the intersection of new technologies and methods of inquiry, particularly as this pertains to educating the next generation of scholars. Selected papers from the 2015 International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry special strand on digital tools for qualitative research are brought together here to explore, among other things, blogging as a tool for meaning-making, social media as a data source, data analysis software for engaging in postmodern pastiche and for supporting complex teams, cell phone application design to optimize data collection, and lessons from interactive digital art that pertain to the use of digital tools in qualitative research. This collection disrupts common conceptions (and persistent misconceptions) about the relationship between digital tools and qualitative research and illustrates the entanglements that occur whenever humans intersect with the nonhuman, the human-made, or other humans.

Drawing from research and theory on interactive digital art (specifically) and the social shaping of technology (more generally), this investigation challenges common conceptualizations of the use of Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDA Software). Through new frameworks for understanding qualitative research practice, the author pushes QDA Software developers, users, and critics to better understand the entangled relationships between qualitative researchers and digital tools for qualitative research. This is achieved by examining four displays of interactive digital art to disrupt the fairly simplistic binaries such as software/methods, researcher/technology, and automated/manual. After a focus on the experience of visitors to these displays, the article concludes with the analogy of the ideal qualitative researcher as a “good visitor” to emphasize the local, dynamic, engaged, and experiential aspects of respectfully and productively collecting and analyzing relevant qualitative data, regardless of whether a researcher uses digital tools to do so or not.

The authors conduct an exposé on the deterministic denunciations of Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) and how citation errors keep these criticisms alive. They use a zombie metaphor to describe more than two decades of battling these seemingly mindless assessments of QDAS that keep coming –despite their decay – and simply will not die. Focusing exclusively on the criticism of separation/distancing, which alleges that the computer and the software interfere with the researcher’s familiarity with the data, the authors trace one current strand of this criticism through a literature genealogy. Three citation errors (half-truth, proxy, and hearsay) are identified to help dismantle the criticism that QDAS inevitably and negatively interferes with the researchers’ connection to the data. The article concludes with a reckoning about the role of QDAS experts in perpetuating these citation errors and provides four specific recommendations for all qualitative researchers; suggestions that amount to a more viable avenue for pursuing a cure.