Regulating qualitative coding using QDAS?

White, Judd, and Poliandri (this volume, 2012:43–76), have usefully pointed out the increasing value of qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) for facilitating mixed-methods analyses. Their interest is in building the capacity of researchers to analyze population-based qualitative (e.g., interview-based) data sets in a way that will allow the combination of results from qualitative content analysis with statistical analysis of derived or associated data. They successfully demonstrate that software is under utilized for both qualitative and mixed-methods analyses, using a keyword search of selected (but wide-ranging) literature. They then usefully employ NVivo, as an example of QDAS, to show how software can be used for a conversion design in which qualitative data are both analyzed in situ in relation to demographic variables and/or quantified for further statistical analysis. In the process, the authors make passing comments that are dismissive of small scale qualitative studies when viewed in comparison with larger population-based studies, and suggest that QDAS was originally geared to taking a quantitative approach to qualitative data