The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Qualitative Data: A Framework of Text Analysis Methods
Abstract
:Information systems (IS) researchers have argued the need for using qualitative approaches, such as action research, ethnomethodology, phenomenology, and futures research, to supplement widely used quantitative approaches. Despite the interest in qualitative approaches, almost all IS articles published in leading IS journals during the previous decade continue to report the results of quantitative studies. The disparity between the interest in and adoption of qualitative approaches may be attributed to unfamiliarity with qualitative approaches for analyzing text data and the mistaken belief that all qualitative approaches are antipositivist. This paper makes qualitative methods more accessible to both researchers and practitioners by providing a framework that categorizes various text analysis approaches. The framework classifies methods as positivist, linguistic, and interpretivist, based on assumptions about the nature of text data, the researcher’s influence on text interpretation, and the validity checks used to justify text interpretations. Thus, all researchers can consider qualitative text analysis methods regardless of their paradigmatic position.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Cited by
Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research
Straub, D., & Gefen, D. (2004) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.01324 · Cited by 2,797
Porra, J., Lacity, M., & Parks, M. S. (2020) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-019-09969-z · Cited by 56
Self-citationSupporting decision making process with “ideal” software agents–what do business executives want?
Duan, Y., Ong, V. K., Xu, M., & Mathews, B. (2012) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.065 · Cited by 28
Bhattacharyya, S. S., Kulkarni, O., & Mishra, A. (2023) · Benchmarking: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/bij-03-2022-0163 · Cited by 23
Activity Theory and e-Course Design: An Experience in Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science
Ramírez, J. L., Juárez, M., & Remesal, A. (2012) · RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal · doi:10.7238/rusc.v9i1.1264 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Lacity, M. C., & Janson, M. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1994-09
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 137-155
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W1545924273
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 16.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding Qualitative Data: A Framework of Text Analysis Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07421222.1994.11518043
- The paper
- Lacity, M. C., & Janson, M. A. (1994). Understanding Qualitative Data: A Framework of Text Analysis Methods. Journal of Management Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1994.11518043
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.