On qualitative data analysis

M. Cardano
{"title":"On qualitative data analysis","authors":"M. Cardano","doi":"10.4324/9780429464232-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The following includes excerpts from Section 1 and Section 4 in “A Quality Approach to Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences Compared to Other Qualitative Methods” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), Art. 31. The Table of Contents for the entire FQS special issue on qualitative content analysis can be found here. The article outlines the basic steps in a content analysis, including the analysis and interpretation phases of the process. Making interpretations from a content analysis are tricky things, esp., when conducting a “primary content analysis” when the content being analyzed is derived from non-research-related, pre-existing sources such as newspapers, blog posts, Hollywood films, YouTube videos, television broadcasts, and the like. The issue here is the “trap” content analysts can fall into by (a) thinking there are causal relationships in the data when there are not, and/or (b) trying to build a story in the shape of their interpretations when the story (based on the data) has little merit. In this way, an overabundance of unsubstantiated subjectivity can creep into the qualitative content analysis method. These traps, related to causality and storytelling, are fairly easy to fall into unless a systematic and conscientious approach is taken in the analysis and interpretation phases. In particular, there are three characteristics of textual and non-textual material used in primary qualitative content analysis tha t may stymie the analyst’s ability","PeriodicalId":177391,"journal":{"name":"Defending Qualitative Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Defending Qualitative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429464232-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The following includes excerpts from Section 1 and Section 4 in “A Quality Approach to Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences Compared to Other Qualitative Methods” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), Art. 31. The Table of Contents for the entire FQS special issue on qualitative content analysis can be found here. The article outlines the basic steps in a content analysis, including the analysis and interpretation phases of the process. Making interpretations from a content analysis are tricky things, esp., when conducting a “primary content analysis” when the content being analyzed is derived from non-research-related, pre-existing sources such as newspapers, blog posts, Hollywood films, YouTube videos, television broadcasts, and the like. The issue here is the “trap” content analysts can fall into by (a) thinking there are causal relationships in the data when there are not, and/or (b) trying to build a story in the shape of their interpretations when the story (based on the data) has little merit. In this way, an overabundance of unsubstantiated subjectivity can creep into the qualitative content analysis method. These traps, related to causality and storytelling, are fairly easy to fall into unless a systematic and conscientious approach is taken in the analysis and interpretation phases. In particular, there are three characteristics of textual and non-textual material used in primary qualitative content analysis tha t may stymie the analyst’s ability
关于定性数据分析
以下内容摘自《定性内容分析的质量方法:与其他定性方法的异同》论坛定性社会研究/论坛定性社会研究,20(3),第31条,第一节和第四节。在这里可以找到FQS关于定性内容分析专刊的目录。本文概述了内容分析的基本步骤,包括该过程的分析和解释阶段。从内容分析中做出解释是一件棘手的事情,特别是在进行“主要内容分析”时,当被分析的内容来源于与研究无关的、预先存在的来源(如报纸、博客文章、好莱坞电影、YouTube视频、电视广播等)。这里的问题是内容分析师可能陷入的“陷阱”(a)认为数据中存在因果关系,而事实并非如此,以及/或(b)试图以他们的解释形式构建故事,而故事(基于数据)几乎没有价值。这样,过多的未经证实的主观性就会渗透到定性内容分析方法中。这些与因果关系和故事叙述相关的陷阱很容易落入,除非在分析和解释阶段采用系统和认真的方法。特别是,在初级定性内容分析中使用的文本和非文本材料有三个特征,这可能会阻碍分析人员的能力
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信