scholarly journals The Meaning Extraction Method: A Complementary Approach to Content Analysis for Communication Research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Matthew Markowitz

Qualitative content analyses often rely on a top-down approach to understand themes in a collection of texts. A codebook prescribes how humans should qualitatively judge whether a text fits a theme based on rules and judgment criteria. Qualitative approaches are challenging because they require many resources (e.g., coders, training, rounds of coding), can be affected by researcher or coder bias, and may miss meaningful patterns that deviate from the codebook. A complementary, bottom-up approach — the Meaning Extraction Method — has been popular in social psychology but rarely applied to communication research. This paper outlines the value of qualitative content analysis and the Meaning Extraction Method, concluding with a guide to conduct analyses of content and themes from massive datasets, quantitatively. The Meaning Extraction Method is performed on a public and published archive of pet adoption profiles to demonstrate the approach. Considerations for communication research are offered.

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Markowitz

Qualitative content analyses often rely on a top-down approach to understand themes in a collection of texts. A codebook prescribes how humans should judge if a text fits a theme based on rules and judgment criteria. Qualitative approaches are challenging because they require many resources (e.g., coders, training, rounds of coding), can be affected by researcher or coder bias, may miss meaningful patterns that deviate from the codebook, and often use a subsample of the data. A complementary, bottom-up approach—the Meaning Extraction Method—has been popular in social psychology but rarely applied to communication research. This paper outlines the value of the Meaning Extraction Method, concluding with a guide to conduct analyses of content and themes from massive and complete datasets, quantitatively. The Meaning Extraction Method is performed on a public and published archive of pet adoption profiles to demonstrate the approach. Considerations for communication research are offered.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-70
Author(s):  
Natalie Brown-Devlin ◽  
Kenon Brown

In order to properly evaluate crises that occur in sports, scholars have previously called for a sports-specific crisis communication typology (Wilson, Stavros, & Westberg, 2010). Two studies were conducted to develop the resulting typology. Study 1 utilized a questionnaire to obtain a comprehensive list of sports-related crises that were later grouped into twelve crisis types and three unique clusters through the use of qualitative content analysis. Study 2 utilized a questionnaire completed by 282 college students to determine the levels of crisis responsibility attributed to each cluster of crises. The resulting typology provides the necessary foundation for crisis communication research that uses sports as a context by evaluating the level of organizational blame that exists when a crisis occurs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (03) ◽  
pp. 2050016
Author(s):  
Patrick Ngulube

The purpose of this article is to investigate the adoption and utilisation of mixed methods research (MMR) in an emerging field, such as knowledge management (KM). Methodologies used by researchers have a bearing on the reliability and validity of the knowledge they produce. There is need to explore the prevalence in use of various methodologies over time. Such studies provide researchers time to reflect on their research practices. It is important to reflect on how researchers are adopting and utilising MMR approaches and what can be done to improve methodological approaches in research. A qualitative content analysis of articles from five leading KM-centric journals published between 2009 and 2014 was conducted for the research purpose. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the utilisation of MMR in KM and provide guidance for those seeking to learn about and apply MMR approaches in research in context. Only 1.1% of the studies were classified as representing some form of MMR. Of the eight articles that were sampled, five of them did not explicitly identify themselves as MMR studies. Two of the articles did not give reasons for combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. None of the studies that were examined identified the MMR approach that was employed. Four of the MMR studies were exploratory, three were explanatory and one was convergent. All the articles were partially mixed studies. Few researchers indicated how they prioritised qualitative and quantitative strands. A handful of sampled studies used MMR and employed basic design typologies in contrast to complex typologies. It is recommended that KM research should embrace MMR and use complex design typologies in order to enhance their understanding of the complex problems that KM scholars encounter. Methodological pluralism has the potential of contributing to the growth in knowledge and development of many perspectives in the field: an appreciation of the advantages of using MMR and its potential to provide a holistic, innovative and robust perspective of research phenomena. The selection criteria in this study excluded other journals that cover KM research. Further research may uncover whether the prevalence rates reported in this study are consistent with those journals which were excluded in this study. Methodologies used by researchers for different kinds of research may be different. The research method employed in this study does not have the ability to establish that. Future studies may employ interviews and other data collection techniques in order to triangulate methods to determine why MMR was not prevalent. The future research directions should consider the extent to which personal, interpersonal and social contexts influence researchers to use MMR.


Author(s):  
Rhonda K. Reger ◽  
Paula A. Kincaid

Content analysis is to words (and other unstructured data) as statistics is to numbers (also called structured data)—an umbrella term encompassing a range of analytic techniques. Content analyses range from purely qualitative analyses, often used in grounded theorizing and case-based research to reduce interview data into theoretically meaningful categories, to highly quantitative analyses that use concept dictionaries to convert words and phrases into numerical tables for further quantitative analysis. Common specialized types of qualitative content analysis include methods associated with grounded theorizing, narrative analysis, discourse analysis, rhetorical analysis, semiotic analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, and conversation analysis. Major quantitative content analyses include dictionary-based approaches, topic modeling, and natural language processing. Though specific steps for specific types of content analysis vary, a prototypical content analysis requires eight steps beginning with defining coding units and ending with assessing the trustworthiness, reliability, and validity of the overall coding. Furthermore, while most content analysis evaluates textual data, some studies also analyze visual data such as gestures, videos and pictures, and verbal data such as tone. Content analysis has several advantages over other data collection and analysis methods. Content analysis provides a flexible set of tools that are suitable for many research questions where quantitative data are unavailable. Many forms of content analysis provide a replicable methodology to access individual and collective structures and processes. Moreover, content analysis of documents and videos that organizational actors produce in the normal course of their work provides unobtrusive ways to study sociocognitive concepts and processes in context, and thus avoids some of the most serious concerns associated with other commonly used methods. Content analysis requires significant researcher judgment such that inadvertent biasing of results is a common concern. On balance, content analysis is a promising activity for the rigorous exploration of many important but difficult-to-study issues that are not easily studied via other methods. For these reasons, content analysis is burgeoning in business and management research as researchers seek to study complex and subtle phenomena.


Author(s):  
Mohammad Reza Armat ◽  
Abdolghader Assarroudi ◽  
Mostafa Rad ◽  
Hassan Sharifi ◽  
Abbas Heydari

The propounded dualism in Content Analysis as quantitative and qualitative approaches is widely supported and justified in nursing literature. Nevertheless, another sort of dualism is proposed for Qualitative Content Analysis, suggesting the adoption of "inductive" and/or "deductive" approaches in the process of qualitative data analysis. These approaches have been referred and labelled as "inductive" or "conventional"; and "deductive" or "directed" content analysis in the literature. Authors argue that these labels could be fallacious, and may lead to ambiguity; as in effect, both approaches are employed with different dominancy during the process of any Qualitative Content Analysis. Thus, authors suggest more expressive, comprehensive, yet simple labels for this method of qualitative data analysis.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie E. Brewster ◽  
Esther N. Tebbe ◽  
Brandon L. Velez

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document