![atlas.ti vs nvivo atlas.ti vs nvivo](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20180625080021811-0597:9781316286302:11333tbl13_3.png)
If you know what you are trying to accomplish (whether you are working with paper or with a computer) it would be very difficult, I think, to choose any of these packages and subsuquently do flimsy work.On the surface MAXQDA and ATLAS.ti seem almost identical.
#Atlas.ti vs nvivo software
most qualitative data has a textual component, though the packages continue to push non-text media forward as an important form of information)? How easy is it for me to access a demonstration version of the software, and does that demonstration give me a general sense of what I'll be able to do with the software (does it fit with the way I define "intuitive")? What software packages have other researchers used when managing data similar to the data I am exploring? What do I hear about the help available through the developers/distributors? What does some of the sample output look like and will this be appropriate in my field or at conferences I attend? Can I afford the cost?
![atlas.ti vs nvivo atlas.ti vs nvivo](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tutorial-de-answr-1229483851536650-2/95/tutorial-de-answr-1-728.jpg)
Researchers who are choosing among software packages might consider asking questions like: Can I find support in training/consultation around the software that I am considering? Is there anything unusual or atypical about my qualitative data (e.g. There are a few features here and there that provide additional nuances to certain kinds of work, but after 10 years in the business of helping software users and qualitative researchers, my experience tells me that 90% of users who know what they want to do with their data (in other words, they already understand their methodological and conceptual frameworks) will be able to conduct an excellent study with either product (and I'd also include MaxQDA). The packages are just tools, through which you apply/track your hard work and thoughtful decisions about the data.
#Atlas.ti vs nvivo Pc
However, choosing Mac over PC (or the other way around) won't do much to influence your ability to produce excellent creative writing any more than choosing NVivo over Atlas.ti will alter your ability to do rigorous qualitative work. There are differences, and some experts appreciate the nuances in ways that allow for a debate of one package against another. My two cents - please note that I am not trying to offend anyone (just to examine the debate in a different way), and I'm still open to some persuasive arguments if others have different perspectives (and thanks to CAQDAS for all of the excellent and hard work in trying to map out the differences among the packages!):ĭebating Atlas.ti versus NVivo is like debating Mac versus PC. By far the majority of collaborations are text based (I suspect I will transcribe relevant parts of the lecturer audio, and just describe how students are interacting with other tools such as the whiteboard). So I suspect I will be coding contributions by the type of thinking they reflect. I'm particularly interested in analysing the ways in which different learning tasks and interface designs that are set in the virtual classroom affect the types of collaborations students conduct.
#Atlas.ti vs nvivo trial
I know this is a really broad question, but I'm sure that your intimate experience with these tools (and lack of familiarity with the data) will still be able to make a better decision than I could, because there's only so much you can pick up from reading reviews and brief experimentations with trial downloads. I have 24 lessons worth of Synchronous Virtual Classroom data (Macromedia Breeze - mainly text chat but with some whiteboard and audio overlay) that I will be analysing, mainly for the text chat. I'm a PhD student from Australia who is trying to decide which software I should use to analyse my research data.