Knight (2002) explains that unobtrusive
methods, which I am assuming includes content analysis, are hard for
researchers to feel “confident” about. He argues that it is hard to know what
the data collected and the measurements used mean (Knight, 2002, p.109). He
also states that, as a result, unobtrusive methods usually need to be shored up
by a mixed methods approach (Knight, 2002, p.109). Thomas (1994), on the other
hand, argues that content analysis is no more prone to being reliant on
subjective inferences than other methods (p.685) and that content analysis has
the benefit of at least forcing researchers to be more transparent about
methodology (p.691).
I
still find Thomas’s (1994) take on authorial intent a little questionable as she
states after tearing down other methodologies for similar tactics that “presumed”
authorial intent can still be measured by creating coding schemes (p.690). She
also states that content analysis can “speculate only on what has been
systematically collected and objectified” (Thomas, 1994, p.695). Like Nick’s
previous posting, we’re stuck in a position where we’re trying to measure
external behaviour and internal perspectives. It’s probably unlikely you can do
both with the same tool.
Knight, P.T. (2002). Small-Scale
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thomas, S. (1994). Artifactual
study in the analysis of culture: A defense of content analysis in a postmodern age. Communication Research. 21(6), 683-97
No comments:
Post a Comment