Comparing qualitative and quantitative text analysis methods in combination with document-based social network analysis to understand policy networks

Q1 Mathematics
Anna Malandrino
{"title":"Comparing qualitative and quantitative text analysis methods in combination with document-based social network analysis to understand policy networks","authors":"Anna Malandrino","doi":"10.1007/s11135-023-01753-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The literature that reflects on the application of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in combination with other methods is flourishing. However, there is a dearth of studies that compare qualitative and quantitative methods to complement structural SNA. This article addresses this gap by systematically discussing the advantages and disadvantages relating to the use of qualitative text analysis and interviewing as well as quantitative text mining and Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques such as word frequency analysis, cluster analysis, topic modeling, and topic classification to understand policy networks. This method-oriented comparative study features two empirical studies that respectively examine the Employment Thematic Network, established under the aegis of the European Commission, and the intergovernmental cooperation network set up within the Bologna Process. The article compares and discusses the underlying research processes in terms of time, human resources, research resources, unobtrusiveness, and effectiveness toward the goal of telling meaningful stories about the examined networks in light of specific guiding hypotheses. In doing so, the paper nurtures the debate on mixed-methods research on social networks amidst the well-known paradigm war between qualitative and quantitative methods in network analysis.","PeriodicalId":49649,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Quantity","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Quantity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01753-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The literature that reflects on the application of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in combination with other methods is flourishing. However, there is a dearth of studies that compare qualitative and quantitative methods to complement structural SNA. This article addresses this gap by systematically discussing the advantages and disadvantages relating to the use of qualitative text analysis and interviewing as well as quantitative text mining and Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques such as word frequency analysis, cluster analysis, topic modeling, and topic classification to understand policy networks. This method-oriented comparative study features two empirical studies that respectively examine the Employment Thematic Network, established under the aegis of the European Commission, and the intergovernmental cooperation network set up within the Bologna Process. The article compares and discusses the underlying research processes in terms of time, human resources, research resources, unobtrusiveness, and effectiveness toward the goal of telling meaningful stories about the examined networks in light of specific guiding hypotheses. In doing so, the paper nurtures the debate on mixed-methods research on social networks amidst the well-known paradigm war between qualitative and quantitative methods in network analysis.
比较定性和定量文本分析方法与基于文档的社会网络分析相结合,了解政策网络
摘要社会网络分析(SNA)与其他方法相结合的应用研究文献层出不穷。然而,缺乏比较定性和定量方法来补充结构SNA的研究。本文通过系统地讨论与使用定性文本分析和访谈以及定量文本挖掘和自然语言处理(NLP)技术(如词频分析、聚类分析、主题建模和主题分类)相关的优点和缺点来解决这一差距。这项以方法为导向的比较研究包括两项实证研究,分别审查在欧洲委员会主持下建立的就业专题网络和在博洛尼亚进程内建立的政府间合作网络。本文从时间、人力资源、研究资源、不显眼性和有效性等方面比较和讨论了潜在的研究过程,以期根据具体的指导假设讲述有关被研究网络的有意义的故事。在这样做的过程中,本文在众所周知的网络分析中定性和定量方法之间的范式战争中,培养了对社会网络混合方法研究的争论。
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
Quality & Quantity
Quality & Quantity 管理科学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
276
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality and Quantity constitutes a point of reference for European and non-European scholars to discuss instruments of methodology for more rigorous scientific results in the social sciences. In the era of biggish data, the journal also provides a publication venue for data scientists who are interested in proposing a new indicator to measure the latent aspects of social, cultural, and political events. Rather than leaning towards one specific methodological school, the journal publishes papers on a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative data. Furthermore, the journal’s key aim is to tackle some methodological pluralism across research cultures. In this context, the journal is open to papers addressing some general logic of empirical research and analysis of the validity and verification of social laws. Thus The journal accepts papers on science metrics and publication ethics and, their related issues affecting methodological practices among researchers. Quality and Quantity is an interdisciplinary journal which systematically correlates disciplines such as data and information sciences with the other humanities and social sciences. The journal extends discussion of interesting contributions in methodology to scholars worldwide, to promote the scientific development of social research.
×
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