Practical inquiry into communication content has been undertaken since at least the 1 600s but not until the 1 940-50s, though the work of Berelson and Lazarsfeld, did it become a recognised research tool (McMillan, 2000). The rise of electronic media in the 20th century has generated new ways that researchers approach the implementation
of traditional research methodologies, including content analysis. A number of disciplines beyond communication have turned their attention to issues of measuring and analyzing content located on the internet. These include the fields of library or information science, political science, marketing, and also education. The internet has opened areas for content analysis research that necessitate the development of new
empirical techniques (Weare & Lin, 2000). However, the work of academics such as Lawson-Borders and Kirk (2005), Trammell and Keshelashvili (2005), Herring, et al. (2005), Papacharissi (2004) and Kerbel and Bloom (2005) have laid a platform for the use of content analysis on blogs. Their development of content analysis techniques has challenged the traditional approach and provided guidance for other researchers conducting blog and website analysis.
It should be noted that at the planning and research design stages of this thesis, there was little in the way of guidance for examining how blogs were used in discussing politics. A number of studies have conducted content analyses of web sites and blogs and these have shown that the methodology is suitable for application on internet
based content, even where various media types are used (Lawson-Borders & Kirk,
2005; Trammell & Keshelashvili, 2005; Herring, Scheidt, et al. 2004, 2005 ; Herring,
Kouper, et al., 2004; Papacharissi, 2004; Trammell, Tarkowski, & Hofmokl, 2006).
There were not, however, studies that sought similar research outcomes, and consequently the approach developed for the content analysis required creative thinking and strategies that had not previously been used - a situation that follows McMillan's (2000) suggestion that creativity is needed to "ensure content analysis can be applied in the dynamic communication environment of the Web" (p. 1 7) . This was especially the case when choosing the unit of analysis.
The internet presents something of a research dichotomy - on one hand it facilitates data gathering like no previous medium; on the other its sheer size and mutability complicate the development of scientifically random samples. As content on the internet increases, researchers need to continually progress their methods to confront the challenges of developing reliable and valid analyses of internet-based content, no matter what their area of communication research (Weare & Lin, 2000). As political discussion moves from the mainstream media to the internet, content analysis
techniques, which have been the foundation method for previous research in this area, will need to adapt to new forms.
The exponential growth of the internet in terms both of users, estimated to be one billion users online in 2005, and of content, in excess of 320 million home pages accessible on the internet, has researchers asking if the internet is moving too fast for
examining communication. McMillan (2000), in an examination of 1 9 studies that apply content analysis techniques to the web, questions whether this growth makes content analysis a redundant tool for web-based research. McMillan concludes that content analysis can be applied to web communication, but that doing so poses potential problems for researchers in four of the five steps in the content analysis process, as described by Krippendorff ( 1 980). In the first step where the research questions are developed, content analysis of the web is both similar to and different from traditional media in that traditional media, such as newspapers and broadcast, have a commonly accepted sequencing of messages whereas the hypertext nature of the web allows users to interact with online content in an individual and unique way. The web is able to combine different media within itself, such as text, audio, still images, and animation. Traditional media, such as video, print and broadcast, all offer these independently. The internet also allows for many communication activities, one to-one and one-to-many communications, asynchronous and synchronous messages.
The second step in content analysis research, sampling, presents some unique challenges for web-based content analysis. The first challenge for a researcher is to identify the units to be sampled. This will normally be determined by the research question. If a data set is derived from the internet, the selection of samples can become more difficult. However, if the data is presented in a similar format to that from an offline source sampling, this can be accomplished more easily. When the list has been created the researcher needs to identify how to develop a random sample. There are many ways this can be achieved but the sampling process needs to act in the best interest of individual research situations. Koehler ( 1 999) has detailed various ways researchers can capture websites and manage the content, but researchers must also bear in mind the need to be cautious about copyright laws when gathering online material.
Thirdly, internet researchers must take care when defining units of analysis. As with the sampling stage, coding units need to be instance specific. There are, however, some standards surrounding context units in traditional media that do not directly translate to the online environment, examples of which include the column-inch
and/or word count for newspapers and time measured in seconds for television and radio. Newhagen and Rafaeli ( 1 996) propose five central qualities of internet
communication that distinguish it from traditional media. These are: multimedia, hypertextuality, packet switching, synchronicity, and interactivity. These qualities, they say, capture what is, or can be, different about internet-based communication.
According to We are and Lin (2000) several researchers have sidestepped definitional issues by not focusing on specific messages and instead focusing on single web pages as defined by URLs -either home pages (e.g., the first page presented when entering a website) or randomly drawn pages (Bates & Lu, 1 997; Bucy, Lang, Potter & Grabe,
1 999; Ha & lames, 1 998; Haas & Grams, 2000; Koehler, 1 999). They conclude that this strategy works well for research questions that focus on generic dimensions of web content such as the frequency of updates to web pages and the use of graphics and links. It facilitates rapid data gathering and coding, and, in this context, the home page, may be an appropriate unit for analysis.
Keyton (2006) says that in most cases the unit of analysis is obvious. This claim is appropriate when referring to hardcopy material, such as newspaper stories/front pages/headlines or content from printed advertising, or even material broadcast from radio and television. However, the complexities of the online world are making the unit of analysis more complex. For instance, the way blog content is read changes depending on the type of software by which it was created (as can be seen in F igures 4 and 5). If a researcher were to use only a webpage as the unit of analysis when studying blogs, then it is possible to miss much of the content written on a page because the reader is required to click on a link to view the entire post on a different webpage. Thus a researcher of blogs, and other internet based material, is required to identify what constitutes a unit of analysis outside of the traditional definition. While this is a challenge to the traditional approach to this methodology, not to do so may mean missing data.
The training of coders and checking the reliability of their coding is stated as the fourth step. Weare and Lin (2000) believe that coding web-based material is similar to traditional content in that extensive training and careful attention are required to produce reliable data except that "researchers must take a number of added precautions due to the complexity and volatility of Web-based content" (p. 287). McMillan does not see the internet posing any new challenges in the last of the five
steps: analysing and interpreting the data. Here researchers need to maintain the rigour in their analysing and interpretation of the findings, which is exactly the same as in traditional content analysis.
4.6 The Content Analysis Process
Material that is sourced from the internet may differ to content that has traditionally been examined (newspapers, television, and radio); however, the process in which the analysis takes place is the same. From her study, McMillan (2000) concluded content analysis to be a methodology well suited for internet-based material. Academic literature is now full of examples where content analysis has been successfully
applied to personal homepages, business and political web sites (Esrock & Leichty,
1 998; Gibbson & Ward, 1 998; Trammell & Keshelashvili, 2005). This research is
consistent with other empirical analyses of web genres (e.g., Bates & Lu, 1 997; Ha &
lames, 1 998; McMillan, 2000).
The procedure for conducting a content analysis has been approached in a number of ways, however, this current research adopted the content analysis process as defined by Hansen et al. and Krippendorff. The number of steps in this process can range from four steps to as many as 1 2 or more steps. This study will use the procedure as stated by Hansen et al. ( 1 998). Krippendorff offers the same process except ·step four
occurs as part of step three. Hansen's steps are as follows:
1 . The definition of the research problem.
2 . The selection and sample o f media. 3 . The defining the analytical categories.
4. The constructing a coding schedule.
5 . The piloting the coding schedule and checking reliability. 6. The preparation of data and analysis.
While there have been significant developments in adjusting traditional content analysis to the fast moving online environment, the fundamentals remain solid and therefore the work of Hansen et al. and Krippendorff, while seemingly dated, is still relevant. This study will also draw on the more recent work of Trammell and
Keshelashvili (2005) and Trammell et al. (2006b) and the advancements they have
introduced to the methodology.