flashcards content analysis

Question 1

what is content analysis?

Answer 1

method for systematically describing the meaning of qualitative data (texts) by assigning parts of the material through categories of a coding frame

• way to extract the meaning of the text
• putting texts into categories, summarizing them in some ways

sources/texts we analyze can be any type: interview transcrepts, speeches, literature, social media, written reports

e.g. social values in ‘little orphan annie’ comic strips -> gives narrative, examples and frequency counts (not wordcount but themes)

Question 2

qualitative content analysis

Answer 2

originated from critique of quantitative content analysis
- they have many procedures in common

quantiative = manifest content/meaning

• assumption that word frequency implies importance
• really efficient, good for much material

critique = overlooks latent meaning

• meaning is often complex, holistic, context dependent = not necessarily apparent at first sigh
• proposition: contextual analysis beyond manifest content and (uncontextualized frequency counts)

now: tons of text -> sometimes infeasible to do qualitative analysis on the whole material (= trade-offs)

!!unit of analysis is not just necessarily the words

Question 3

main characteristics qualitative content analysis

Answer 3

1. systematic:
   - analyzes the whole text material (avoid cherry-picking specific parts) to make an argument
   - specifies a sequence of categorizing instructions beforehand (but allows adaptation)
   - runs the coding twice to verify consistent categorization (pilot vs main phase)
2. reduces data: analyzes the whole text material BUT focus on specific parts
   - what aspects? aspects of meaning (themes, tropes, statements) related to the RQ
   - text pieces not relevant to coding framework stay out (by definition)
3. flexible = coding categories may be modified to adapt a specific tet (but always guided by latent concepts): combines concept-driven (theory-driven) and data-driven categories
   = main diff with quantitative content analysis

Question 4

contrast quali and quanti content analysis

Answer 4

shared procedures -> they look very similar
(bc quali develops from quanti)

• coding to systematically describe data
• definitions for categories
• predefined steps
• pilot phase followed by main analysis phase
• adaptation in second iteration(s) = do it twice to check it
• quality criteria for categories: validity and consistency
• presentation may involve frequency counts (but interpretation is diff)

but also differences

1. main = quali goes beyond manifest meaning (not words at face value) = latent and contextual meaning
   - collect THEMES not words (diff unit of analysis), themes can also be in phrases or tropes
   - to infer a theme is important we require more evidence than sheer frequency -> analyze material holistically and its publication context
2. flexible coding: concept-driven and data-driven: modify categories to contain all the data (to understand latent meanings + discover info we didn’t know existed)
   = we adapt our coding frame

Question 5

unit of analysis quali CA

Answer 5

quali goes beyond manifest meaning (not words at face value) = latent and contextual meaning

• collect THEMES not words (diff unit of analysis), themes can also be in phrases or tropes
• to infer a theme is important we require more evidence than sheer frequency -> analyze material holistically and its publication context

Question 6

how to do qualitative CA
8 steps

Answer 6

1. decide RQ
2. select material: any kind of text
3. build coding frame
4. segmentation
5. trial coding
6. evaluating and modifying the coding frame
7. main analysis
8. presenting and interpreting the findings

Question 7

step 3: build coding frame

Answer 7

create categories and subcategories

• categories = aspects of the text-material about which we want information (e.g. social values, objectives in life)
• subcategories = specify what is said about the categories (e.g. a specific objective in life)

everything that is relevant is going to be considered

to create the frame =

1. take a (purposive, non-random) sample: select parts of the text that reflects the diversity of sources
2. to structure categories/sub-categories =
   - use concept-driven categories (a theory, prior research, everyday knowledge, logic or an interview guide gives expectations of what you will see)
   - AND data-driven categories: inductively = accounting for the characteristics of our data (things you didnt take into account beforehand, before analyzing the text)(data-driven supplements concept-driven)
   !this data driven categories you wouldn’t do with quanti

!make procedures transparent and replicable -> define and keep a CODEBOOK: for all categories and sub-categories give:
(explanation how you classify the text)

Question 8

step 4: segmentation

Answer 8

= need to define the unit of analysis

• formal = element of syntatix, like a word, paragraph, individual interviewee
• thematic = diff themes or discursive pieces

usually thematic = more appropriate for qualitative analysis, but less clear-cut than if we use an element of syntaxis

e.g. unit is a piece of discourse in relation to euthanasia (not necessarily a single sentence/word/paragraph)
- sentence may have two themes: an opinion and a reasoning behind it for example

Question 9

quality criteria for categories and subcategories

Answer 9

1. unidimensionality = each category, one concept (one unit/theme should not go into two categories)
   - overall coding frame covers many concepts/dimensions
   - e.g. opinion vs reasons for the opinion
2. mutually exclusive = no ambiguity about where a unit of text should be categorized
   !unit is a theme, not a sentence or smth, so a sentence can be in multiple categories, a theme cant
3. exhaustive: framework allows to categorize all relevant aspects of text-material
   - we can always have a miscellaneous or residual category, but this is risky: we should question why the units can’t go elsewhere and if we shouldn’t create a more specific category

Question 10

step 5: trial coding
+ step 6: evaluating and modifying the coding frame

Answer 10

= pilot phase

1. select a sample from the material
2. code it
3. assess whether the coding framework should be modified

two trials, ideally two coders working independently (or the same person at diff times)

what % of units get equally classified the second time compared to the first?
= look for consistency
+ look for validity (are the categories adequately describing what we’re talking about)

make sure your coding frame is good enough before going into the whole analysis

Question 11

step 7: main analysis
+ step 8: report results

Answer 11

main analysis = all relevant aspects of the text material is coded

reporting = represent the frame and illustrate through quotations

• quantitative style = frequencies or inferential statistics (e.g. chi-square)
• for quali you can also count the themes, than there is more interpretation than with quanti counting words

Question 12

applied reading: minority empathy hypothesis in NL 1930-39

Answer 12

RQ = does a minority status affect opinion on the ‘other’?

• compare how catholic elites (north holland they are minority, in limburg they are majority) talk about jewish communities
• hypothesis = religions minorities discriminate less and show more empathy toward persecuted an stigmatized minorities than their majority counterparts

text material = public statements regarding Jewish communities in the 2 most important catholic newspapers of the regions, only the digitalized ones

method = qualitative content analysis (semi-automated = finding text through machines but hand-coded)

coding frame = completely theory-driven, but well adapted to the context with secondary literature

• categories = identity-related frames (pluralism, assimilation, similarity, difference)
• subcategories = ultilitarian frames (opportunity and threats)

segmentation (unit of analysis): acts of public claim making = public articulation of political demands, critiques, proposals and policies targeting specific collective actors

Question 13

example categories and subcategories - interview about Terry Schiavo’s euthanasia

Answer 13

• category = opinions about Schiavo’s euthanasia
  (subcategories of opinion: morally justified, long overdue, morally wrong)
• category = reasons in favor for turning off machines
  (subcategories of reasons: unneccessary prolongation of suffering, high cost)

!!!if you did this with quanti
RQ: do people reflect on euthanasia in moral or practical terms? -> define words associated with moral and with practical terms -> count which one you see more

• what are you missing = reasons why people oppose/support euthanasia
• is like a survey: extracts data you’re looking for, not possible to get additional info