Content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid

inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter (to the contexts of their use
(18). Another definition provided by Cole (1988) is that content analysis is a
method of analysing written, verbal or visual communication. Broadly defined,
however, content analysis is any technique for making inferences by
systematically and objectively identifying special characteristics of messages
(Holsti, 1968:68). This method or research technique rather provides new
insights and improves a researchers understanding of a particular phenomena,
or informs practical actions (18). Like any research method it is expected to be
reliable. An important part of ensuring this is replicability (18). It is imperative
to note that content analysis is a scientific tool. This method was firstly used to
analyse hymns, newspapers and magazine articles, advertisements and
political speeches in the 19
th
century (Harwood and Gary, 2003). It has steadily
grown over the years and is now a prominent method in research.
Literature review reveals that about three kinds of definitions have been
provided. They include: (a) definitions that take content to be inherent in a
text; (b) definitions that take content to be a property of the source of a text;
(c) definitions that take content to emerge in the process of a researcher
analysing a text relative to a particular context (19). An example of someone
who subscribes to the first definition is Berelson (1952:18) who defined
content analysis as a research technique for the objective, systematic and
quantitative description of the manifest content of communication. This
definition largely receives critique on its tendency to imply that content is
contained in messages, waiting to be separated from its form and described
(19). Definitions of the second kind tie content analysis of texts to inferences
about the states or properties of the sources of the analysed texts
(Krippendorf, 1969a: 70; Osgood 1959: 35). Unfortunately this definitions are
too limiting as identified by Shapiro and Markoff (1997). The definition given
at the beginning is the of the third kind. Research using qualitative content
analysis focuses on the characteristics of language as communication with
attention to the content or contextual meaning of the text (Budd, Thorp, and
Donohew, 1967; Lindkvist, 1981; McTavish and Pirro, 1990; Tesch, 1990).
Qualitative content analysis transcends the mere counting of words and goes
on to examining language intensely for the purpose of classifying large
amounts of text into a specific number of categories that represent similar
meanings (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005:1278). These various categories can
represent either explicit communication or inferred communication. Scholars
argue that the goal of content analysis is provide knowledge and
understanding of the phenomena under study (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992:314).

Qualitative or quantitave?

This is where the method found in most daring critiques. Some scholars
consider quantative analysis as too simplistic a technique that does not lend
itself to detailed statistical analysis, while others have considered that content
analysis is not adequately qualitative in nature (Morgan,1993).
Scholars have engaged on this debate and the following inferences have been
made. It is important to start by acknowledging that quantification is important
in research and that qualitative has also proven useful. There are scholar that
favour or have favoured quantitative content analysis like Berelson (1952) and
Silverman (1993:59). Sellitz et al (1959:336) state that concerns over
quantification tend to emphasize the procedures of analysis rather than the
character of the data available. Smith (1975) solution to the problem is to use
a blend of qualitative and quantitative analysis. Smith depends this position
because qualitative analysis deals with the forms and antecedent-subsequent
patterns of form (1975:218). Abrahamson (1983:286) suggests that, content
analysis can be fruitfully employed to examine virtually any type of
communication. Consequently, this would mean that content analysis may
either qualitative or quantitative.

A content analyst must acknowledge that all texts are produced and read by
others and are expected to be significant to them, not just to the analyst (22).
Below are six features of texts that are important to understand in the
definition of content analysis.
1. Texts have no objective- that is, no reader-independent-qualities. What
this means can be summed up by saying that there is nothing inherent in
a text; the meanings of a text are always brought to it by someone (22).
2. Texts do not have single meanings that could be found, identified,
and described for what they are (22). Texts can be read from
numerous perspectives, as a result data can be subjected to different
types of analyses.
3. The meanings invoked by texts need not be shared (23).
4. Meanings (contents) speak to something other the given texts, even
where convention suggests that messages contain them or texts
have them.
5. Texts have meanings relative to particular contexts, discourses, or
purposes.
6. The nature of text demands that content analysts draw specific
inferences from a body of texts to their chosen context.




Different approaches to qualitative content analysis.
It is important to note before going very far in summary that all approaches to
content analysis require the same analytical process of seven classic steps
which include formulating the research questions to be answered, selecting
the sample to be analysed, defining the categories to be applied, outlining the
coding process and the other coder training, implementing the coding process,
determining trustworthiness, and analysing the results of the coding process
(Kaid, 1989). Central to the success of content analysis is the coding process
(1285). Key differences between conventional, directed, and summative
approaches to content analysis preside on how initial codes are developed
(1286). The coding process is fundamentally important in determining the
success of content analysis (1286).

Conventional content analysis.
This method is general used with a study design whose aim is to describe a
phenomenon (1279). In this way, researchers avoid pre-ordained categories
and allow the data to speak for itself (1279). In this way researchers immerse
themselves in the data and in the same process to allow new insights to come
out (1279). This is also described as inductive category development (Mayring,
2000). Data are read word for to develop codes by first highlighting the precise
words from the text that appear to capture key thoughts or concepts (Miles
and Huberman, 1994). After this process is concluded, the researcher follows
up by making notes of his or her impressions, thoughts, and initial analysis
(1279). This process will lead to the development of codes which will then be
sorted into categories based on how different codes are related and linked ( ).
These codes will then be organized into meaningful clusters, which is really
between 10-15 (1279). Based on the relationships between subcategories, it
can be organized into larger number of subcategories. A tree diagram may be
developed to help in organizing these categories into a hierarchical structure
(Morse and Field, 1995). After this process, definitions for each category,
subcategory and code may be developed (1279). Based on the research
motives, researchers may develop relationships between categories and sub-
categories from their occurrence, antecedents, or consequences (Morse and
Field, 1995). In the discussion section of this method, relevant theories or
other research are discussed (1279). The advantage of the conventional
approach to content analysis is gaining direct information from study
participants without imposing categories or theoretical perspectives (1280). A
shortcoming of this type of analysis is failing to develop a complete
understanding of the context, therefore failing to identify relevant categories
(1280). This causes the problem of attaining credibility as it can result in
inaccurate findings (1280). In turn, credibility can be attained through
activities such as peer debriefing, prolonged engagement, persistent
observation, triangulation, negative case analysis, referential adequacy, and
member checks (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Manning, 1997). Another potential
challenge with conventional approach is the fact that it can be easily be
confused with other qualitative methods such as grounded theory.
Conventional approach to content analysis is both limited in both development
and description of lived experience (1281).

Directed content analysis.
This method is used when there is existing theory about phenomenon that is
incomplete or would benefit with a bit of description (1281). The goal of
directed approach to content analysis is mainly to validate and in the process
extend conceptually a theoretical framework or theory (1281). This is the
deductive use of theory (Elo and Kyngas, 2007:109). Deductive content
analysis is used when the structure of analysis is operationalized on the basis
of the previous knowledge and the purpose of the study is theory testing
(Kyngas and Vanhanen, 1999). Existing theory can then aid in helping to
formulate the research question. It can do this by providing predictions about
the variables of interest or about the relationships among variables (1281).
Content analysis using this method is guided by more structured processes
than in conventional analysis (Hickey and Kipping, 1996). Firstly, using pre-
existing theory or research, one has to identify key concepts or variables as
initial coding categories (Potter and Levine-Dornestein, 1999). After this stage,
come the operational definitions of each category through the use of theory
(1281). The data used in this method can be obtained through interviews; an
open-ended question might be used, followed by targeted questions about the
predetermined categories (1281). Consequently, coding can be done with one
of the two strategies depending on the research question (1281). If the motive
it to identify and categorize all instances of a particular phenomenon, then it is
important to read the transcript and highlight all text that sees to stick out. Any
text that do not fit the categories initially can be given a new code (1281). The
second strategy can be used when the analysis begins with predetermined
codes (1282). Data that cannot be coded will be identified and analysed at a
later stage to distinguish if they provide new categories or a sub-category
(1282). A researcher can choose which of these strategies to use based on the
research question. A way to increase trustworthiness is to highlight all the data
without coding (1282). However, if the researcher feels confident about the
initial coding, coding can begin immediately.
The findings from this method offer supporting and non-supporting evidence
of a theory. Prior theory is used to guide the discussion of findings. The major
strength of this method is that existing theory can be supported and extended.
However, this method has limitations in that researchers approach the data
with an informed yet strong bias which may lead them to finding findings that
are more supporting than not (1283). Another concern is that when
interviewing, participants might answer in ways that they would deem would
please the interviewers. More so, an emphasis on theory has tendencies to
blind researchers of taking note of context. In order to transcend these
concerns, an audit trail and audit trail can be used (1283).
Summative content analysis.
This third method starts with identifying and quantifying certain words or
content inn text with the purpose of understanding the contextual use of the
words or content (1283). A summative approach to qualitative content analysis
starts by quantification and goes beyond mere word count to include latent
content analysis (1283). The quantification is largely an attempt to explore
usage of the content. What is referred to as latent content analysis is a process
of interpretation of content (Holsti, 1968). Latent analysis focuses on
discovering underlying meanings of words or the content (1284). Researchers
using summative analysis approach begin with searches for occurrences of the
identified words by hand or by computer (1285). The word frequency of the
term identified will be calculated with source or speaker also identified.
Counting is deployed to identify patterns in the data and to contextualize the
codes (Morgan, 1993). This inevitably paves way for an easy interpretation of
the context associated with the use of the word or phrase (1285). Summative
approach is an obstructive and non-reactive way to study a phenomenon of
interest (Barbie, 1992). However, the findings from this approach are very
much limited by their inattention to the broader meanings present in the data
(1285). Best way to get reliability, then is to show that textual evidence
consistent with the interpretation (Weber, 1990).

Some key concepts to understand.
When using content analysis strategies to assess written documents,
researchers must first decide at what level they plan to sample and what units
of analysis will be counted. Sampling may occur at any or at all the levels:
words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, sections, chapters, books, writers,
ideological stance, subject topic, or similar elements relevant to context ( ).
Sampling units are units that are distinguished for selective inclusion in an
analysis (98).

Units.
Units are wholes that analysts distinguish and treat as independent elements
(97).