Content analysis 157

Content analysis is one of the classical procedures for analysing communication material. Titscher et al. define content analysis as the use of “… those methods of text analysis which somehow approach texts by means of categories …” (Titscher et al. 2000: 55).

Classical content analysis

The development of content analysis is fundamentally influenced by the development of mass media and international politics during the first half of the twentieth century. In an attempt to systematically evaluate big amounts of textual data from mass media, the first approaches developed were merely quantitatively oriented (see Mayring 1991: 209). The simplest type of evaluation consisted in counting the number of occurrences per category developed.

Classical content analysis essentially is a quantitative method, with the core and central tool being the categorisation or coding operation. Originally, content analysis referred only to methods concentrating on directly and clearly quantifiable aspects of text content and therefore on absolute and relative frequencies of words per text or surface unit (see Titscher et al. 2000: 55). Subsequently, the concept was extended to those procedures which operate with syntactic, semantic or pragmatic categories, but which at least seek to quantify these categories by means of a frequency survey of classifications (see Titscher et al. 2000: 55).

Mayring summarises the main disadvantages of the classical (quantitative) content analysis as follows (see Mayring 1991: 209): latent structures of sense are not properly taken into account; the context of the analysed text components are part of the analysis; the linguistic quality of texts is neglected; systematisation and verifiability cannot be ensured.

Qualitative content analysis

On the basis of the critique raised against quantitative content analysis, more qualitatively oriented approaches were developed. Mayring’s qualitative content analysis tries to overcome the shortcomings of classical content analysis and has made it difficult to separate it from other methods of text analysis, particularly ethnographic methods and grounded theory (see Titscher et al. 2000: 55). Mayring himself stresses the following advantages (see Mayring 2003: 42-46):

o the material to be analysed is understood as part of a model of communication;

o systematisation is ensured because of a rule-based analysis: the material is analysed step-by-

158

o categories are developed on the basis of the material and taking into account the research

question, defining and revising them within the process of analysis (feedback loops);

o quantitative analysis can be integrated into the course of qualitative content analysis and is

important when trying to generalise results;

o methods to ensure reliability and validity have been developed.

Mayring has developed a sequential model and distinguishes three analytical procedures which may be carried out independently or in combination, depending on the research question (see Mayring 2003: 42-99):

o summarising content analysis attempts to reduce the material in such a way that the essential

content is preserved in a more manageable size. For this, the material is paraphrased, generalised or abstracted and reduced;

o explicative content analysis works in the opposite way: it involves explaining, clarifying and

annotation of the material. In a first step, a lexico-grammatical definition is formulated, then the material for explication is determined, followed by a narrow and a broad context analysis;

o structuring content analysis looks for types or formal structures in the material and

corresponds more or less to the procedures used in classical content analysis. The text can be structured according to content, form and scaling. The steps involved are the following: (a) determination of the units of analysis, (b) determination of the dimensions of structuring (categories), (c) establishment of features of the categories identified, (d) formulation of definitions and rules for coding, based on key examples, (e) first appraisal of the material with the aim of fixing the data locations, (f) second scrutiny in which the data are processed and extracted, (g) if necessary, a re-examination and revision of the category system is done, (h) in a final step the results are processed.

The process of qualitative content analysis in general consists of nine stages: (1) determination of the material; (2) analysis of the situation in which the text originated; (3) formal characterisation of the material; (4) determination of the direction of the analysis; (5) theoretically informed differentiation of questions to be answered; (6) selection of the analytical techniques to be used (summary, explication, structuring); (7) definition of the unit of analysis; (8) analysis of the material (summary, explication, structuring); (9) interpretation and presentation of results (see Mayring 2003: 42-99, for more details on each of them).

Category development is crucial for qualitative content analysis. Mayring distinguishes two approaches (see Mayring 2000: [8-17]):

o inductive category development is based on the idea of developing categories step-by-step out

of the material. In a first step, the categories are deduced while working through the material; in a second or more steps, the categories might be revised, eventually reduced to main categories and checked for their reliability;

o deductive category development works with previously formulated categories, theoretically

159 Limitations of Mayring’s qualitative content analysis include the following:

o the method seems less appropriate if the research question is highly open-ended, explorative,

variable and when working with categories would be a restriction, or if a more holistic, not step-by-step type of analysis is planned (Mayring 2000: [27]);

o since qualitative content analysis first extracts the relevant parts of the material and then

analyses them, it can only be used if the text itself is not the subject of examination (Gläser/Laudel 2004: 200);

o interpretation of the text is done rather schematically, especially when the technique of

explicative content analysis is applied, without really reaching the depths of the text (Flick 2006: 193);

o the use of paraphrases, particularly in the summarising content analysis, are used to replace

the original material rather than to explain it (Flick 2006: 193).