Noteworthy Disparities With Four CAQDAS Tools: Explorations in Organising Live Twitter Data

Qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) packages that support live data extraction are a relatively recent innovation. Little has been written concerning the research implications of differences in such QDAS packages’ functionalities, and how such disparities might contribute to contrasting analytical opportunities. Consequently, early-stage researchers may experience difficulties in choosing an apt QDAS for Twitter analysis. In response to both methodological gaps, this paper presents a software comparison across the four QDAS tools that support live Twitter data imports, namely, ATLAS.ti™, NVivo™, MAXQDA™ and QDA Miner™. The authors’ QDAS features checklist for these tools spotlights many differences in their functionalities. These disparities were tested through data imports and thematic coding that was derived from the same queries and codebook. The authors’ resultant QDAS experiences were compared during the first activity of a broad qualitative analysis process, ‘organising data’. Notwithstanding large difference in QDAS pricing, it was surprising how much the tools varied for aspects of qualitative research organisation. Notably, the quantum of data extracted for the same query differed, largely due to contrasts in the types and amount of data that the four QDAS could extract. Variations in how each supported visual organisation also shaped researchers’ opportunities for becoming familiar with Twitter users and their tweet content. Such disparities suggest that choosing a suitable QDAS for organising live Twitter data must dovetail with a researcher’s focus: ATLAS.ti accommodates scholars focused on wrangling unstructured data for personal meaning-making, while MAXQDA suits the mixed-methods researcher. QDA Miner’s easy-to-learn user interface suits a highly efficient implementation of methods, whilst NVivo supports relatively rapid analysis of tweet content. Such findings may help guide Twitter social science researchers and others in QDAS tool selection. Future research can explore disparities in other qualitative research phases, or contrast data extraction routes for a variety of microblogging services.