Software tools you’ve always needed but never knew about

 

*The second conversation held by the Durham Research Methods Café, “Software tools you’ve always needed but never knew about”, invited discussions around potentially useful software with contributions from at least 7 different departments. The discussion proved insightful, as a huge range of software suggestions had been made by the end, the majority of which I myself was unfamiliar with. As a starting point, participants were posed the following simple question but were invited to contribute in real time throughout the discussion; “What is the software tool you would most recommend to researchers?” This resulted in the word cloud printed below (developed in Mentimeter), which provides some idea of the breadth of options and recommendations made by participants. Covering everything would be impossible, so summarised in this blog are some of the main topics and software covered.

Discussions began on programming languages, specifically R and Python, which are increasingly useful for research, either by automating tasks or conducting more flexible and advanced analyses. They come with challenges however, with many often thinking of programming as scary, inaccessible, and overly time consuming. Although there may be some truth to this, very few of those which use these languages on a daily basis will say they regret spending the time and undergraduate courses teaching R (over more traditional stats packages) have been highly successful. Many agreed that perceived barriers are just that, perceived, and a gentle introduction to this software can often be all it takes.

This transitioned nicely into discussions surrounding collaboration and tools to facilitate file sharing, which are especially important in the Covid-19 world. For those writing programmes, there is GitHub which seamlessly facilitates collaborations on anything from single Python scrips or Latex documents to complex software development. Referencing software proved a hot topic. Though the need and use for them did not seem in dispute, Mendeley, Endnote and Zotero were all offered as alternatives, each, of course, with their own downsides. Endnote is not free, and some expressed concerns over Mendeley’s ability to synchronise libraries across multiple people. Referencing libraries also require an upfront investment, as it is very time consuming to switch programme, once committed. For those inclined towards Latex, Overleaf allows others to contribute to and comment on a shared document, which base Latex historically struggles with.

One member offered an insightful impromptu demo of the website Notion, an online tool offering facilities to collate workflows, simplify file sharing and do basically anything else. While the advanced packages are not free, Notion offers a free version with much of the important functionality enabled. Other browser based software, for example Trello or Asana, offer similar functionality. For some, these tools could potentially be extremely helpful, taking the member only a couple of months to get to grips with. Getting the most from it perhaps depends on buy-in from the rest of your organisation or team as the primary strength of tools like this comes from the ability to share work easily with others.

This raised a few other interesting points regarding compatibility. Not everyone in the world uses Windows, as is often assumed. Indeed, many use Mac, Linux or something different entirely. As accessible and secure as staple Microsoft applications may be, this may prevent effective collaboration with those who do not have access to this software. Further, especially with many working from home who do not have access to capable hardware, resource heavy Microsoft applications can prove problematic. Browser based or other free tools such as Notion, Trello or Asana offer ideal solutions to this problem. Alternatively, one can remove compatibility issues entirely by running a second operating system in a virtual machine using virtual box or something similar. Of course, the benefits of free or open source tools must similarly be weighed against the negatives as they offer no guarantee of continued developer support or may be less secure than other, paid, alternatives.

Finally, the discussion turned back to statistics. Being the most well-known, R is only becoming more popular for conducting all manner of statistical analyses, with many agreeing its not clear at this point what R cannot do. Though, one participant raised the concern that a move away from traditional point and click tools could introduce a “wild west” of untested and potentially invalid code. Perhaps this represents the most compelling argument for greater transparency in research, in terms of publishing data and code on sites like Open science. Other free alternatives also exist such as JASP or Inzight, if one would prefer to rely on more “tried and tested” analytical approaches. For spatial analysis, the premier software ArcGIS and ArcMap offers huge capabilities, including creating presentations along places of interest. This functionality was especially interesting, as it seamlessly integrated qualitative and quantitative data in a digestible format.  

If this discussion revealed anything, it is that software exists for almost anything you could hope for. There are often multiple ways to approach any problem and it is well worth investigating what options exist before jumping in. Nothing comes for free however, whether that is paying for licences (some of which are available through Durham University) or the time investment required to learn it. Just because specialist software exists for completing a particular task, it is always worth considering if the time investment is worth it. Having said that, just because a piece of software or method is the most popular or well used option, does not mean it is the most efficient. Ultimately, explore what's out there and see what works best for you. 

*The views expressed in this blog are that of the author and the authors interpretation of comments made during the conversation.

Written by Robin Watson, PhD student in the Anthropology Department