From your description it sounds as if a PKM solution (such as the great Obsidian kit by mentioned above) could be made to work for such a workflow as well. And then for that summary of issues/links/annotations to be created in as flexible/customizable way as possible so I can use it in a report or blog or book or ebook or all of the above. I did try out some of the open source options and felt that none were quite robust enough, but that’s changing and I’m hopeful that in a few years they will be as full-featured as these others.įor me what is most important is to be able to create issues and then related to those list URL links to related citations along with some text explaining how that item supports or refutes the issue at hand. (As powerful as it is, I just preferred Atlas!) That said, so many of the people I work with use NVivo that I may end up having to go with that even though I didn’t love working with it.
Having tried them all very recently I’d say that Atlas.ti was the most aesthetically-pleasing and Mac-y for me, and I felt like the UI was most intuitive for my needs. I suspect depending on your needs (collaboration, for example, means you’ll need to have a team using the same one as you) and UI preferences you’ll naturally gravitate towards one.
#NVIVO 12 IN MAC BIBLIOGRAPHY LICENSE#
With the other big three, I think it mostly comes down to preference, norms in your discipline, and price (they’re all expensive, but depending on which license you get there may be significant differences). Devonthink, as someone else mentioned, is great for aggregating documents I really wanted it to work for my QDA needs but it was much better for collection & storage than the more granular analysis phase.ĭedoose seems good, but after a friend of mine had catastrophic data loss with them in years past I have been pretty suspicious of it I know they have beefed up their infrastructure but it makes me wary. I recently went on a journey with respect to this.