The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology
Open accessAbstract
Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.
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
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 6×
“One way of corroborating face validity is to have judges work backwards from the measure to determine the concept being measured (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 115).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialA Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews
Boeije, H. (2002) · Quality and Quantity · doi:10.1023/a:1020909529486 · Cited by 3,073
Cited by
Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior
(2016) · Studies in Information · doi:10.1108/s2055-53772016 · Cited by 1,540
Schiff, D. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00270-2 · Cited by 489
“This consisted of evaluating each document for the presence or absence of each theme (White and Marsh 2006), largely a binary exercise, though some documents were coded as borderline cases.”
BackgroundMethodSystems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field
Carey, G., Malbon, E., Carey, N., Joyce, A., Crammond, B., & Carey, A. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009002 · Cited by 432
Sun, Y., Sheng, D., Zhou, Z., & Wu, Y. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03811-x · Cited by 327
Content‐based citation analysis: The next generation of citation analysis
Ding, Y., Zhang, G., Chambers, T., Song, M., Wang, X., & Zhai, C. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23256 · Cited by 252
Metadata
- Authors
- White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E.
- Venue
- Library Trends
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-45
- ISSN
- 0024-2594 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-0682
- OpenAlex
- W2111614279
- Cited by
- 1,999
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 87.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.
