Terminology
There are many terms used to signify nuances in conducting Textual Analyses. In the 1960s, Harold Lasswell conceptualized content analyses as the analysis of "Who says what, to whom, why, to what extent and with what effect?" Krippendorff (2012) defines Content Analysis as "a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences
from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use." (p. 24)
Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) and Altheide (1996) draw a distinction between Content Analysis and Qualitative Document Analysis (also known as Ethnographic Content Analysis). Qualitative Document Analysis privileges the researchers role in the analysis by using a "constant comparative" approach and is concerned with identifying meanings, patterns, and themes in texts rather than frequencies and quantitative statistical inferences.
Often, both counts of the presence of certain phenomena, as well as "meaning" approaches are combined in a single study, which allows for the benefits of both quantitative and qualitative richness.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is another term which highlights an "explicit sociopolitical stance" (van Dijk 1993). Scholars of CDA are primarily focused on the connection between language and power (Fairclough 1995). Narrative Analysis, on the other hand, is the study of story-telling, people's accounts and meaning making that occurs in texts (Riessman 2008).
Regardless of the specific terms scholars use, many commonalities exist in the process that researchers undergo while conducting analyses. One helpful resource to think about the overall process of content analyses is demonstrated in a flowchart from the online version of The Content Analysis Guidebook. Also, check out our pages on Common Challenges, 5 Star Studies, Recommended Readings, and Software.
Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) and Altheide (1996) draw a distinction between Content Analysis and Qualitative Document Analysis (also known as Ethnographic Content Analysis). Qualitative Document Analysis privileges the researchers role in the analysis by using a "constant comparative" approach and is concerned with identifying meanings, patterns, and themes in texts rather than frequencies and quantitative statistical inferences.
Often, both counts of the presence of certain phenomena, as well as "meaning" approaches are combined in a single study, which allows for the benefits of both quantitative and qualitative richness.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is another term which highlights an "explicit sociopolitical stance" (van Dijk 1993). Scholars of CDA are primarily focused on the connection between language and power (Fairclough 1995). Narrative Analysis, on the other hand, is the study of story-telling, people's accounts and meaning making that occurs in texts (Riessman 2008).
Regardless of the specific terms scholars use, many commonalities exist in the process that researchers undergo while conducting analyses. One helpful resource to think about the overall process of content analyses is demonstrated in a flowchart from the online version of The Content Analysis Guidebook. Also, check out our pages on Common Challenges, 5 Star Studies, Recommended Readings, and Software.
References
Altheide, David L. 1996. Qualitative Media Analysis (Qualitative Research Methods). Sage Publications.
Fairclough, Norman, ed. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman Group Limited.
Krippendorff, Klaus H. 2012. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3rd ed. SAGE.
Riessman, Catherine Kohler. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. SAGE.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society 4:249-83.
Fairclough, Norman, ed. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman Group Limited.
Krippendorff, Klaus H. 2012. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3rd ed. SAGE.
Riessman, Catherine Kohler. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. SAGE.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society 4:249-83.
