Recently, some asked me “In an upcoming project I will analyze a huge amount of (approximately 500 clips) of youtube videos and was wondering, which version of Transana I need – also taking into consideration that I barely have funding for technical devices (e.g. software…) at the moment.” Here’s my response.
I found this question on an academic web site, ” I wondered if you have used a software in the past that you can recommend in terms of usability, comprehensibility of the analysis, visualization and costs?” When read an early response, I felt compelled to respond.
In a recent support inquiry, a researcher asked, “I want to know if I can code the videos directly or if Transana requires a transcript to do the coding.”
In a recent support inquiry, a researcher asked, “what is the best way to open code a transcribed & segmented video? If I create collections or quick clips, they multiply to an unmanageable number and are not organized in a way where I can see how the odes are overlapping, interacting, etc.”
I found myself wondering — how does Transana, with its affordances and tools and ways of working, influence researchers’ approach to their data?
Yesterday was a big deal. Everything changed for me. But hopefully, nothing will have changed for Transana users.
The qualitative analysis of text, still images, and media data can be a complex task. Qualitative analysis can be conducted in a variety of ways, depending on methodology, field of study, type of data, and researcher preferences. As a result, the software that supports the qualitative analysis of such data can be very complex too, when the researcher needs it to be.