the
terms "content analysis" and "coding" interchangeably,
to refer to the objective, systematic, and quantitative
description of any symbolic behavior.
Now, let us code these according to the rate of usage of each member of three word pairs: quantitative/qualitative, systematic/nonsystematic, and objective/subjective:
Document Quanti Quali System Nonsys Objective Sub
tative tative atic tematic jective
1... 1 1 1
2... 1 1
3... 1 1 1
What have we learned in this simple study? Two of the three texts used the word "quantitative," while all three used "systematic" and "objective." None used any of the words "qualitative," "nonsystematic," or "subjective." Even without actually reading the definitions, we could infer strongly that the definers were "biased" in favor of the quantitative, the systematic, and the objective.
Simple word counting can, of course, be misleading in some ways. Suppose that we had a fourth statement about content analysis, as follows:
Content analysis is rooted in the fallacious
assumption that human utterances can be analysed
in a quantative, systematic, and objective way,
when this is clearly impossible.
Document Quanti Quali System Nonsys Objective Sub
tative tative atic tematic jective
4... 1 1 1
We can make two points about this score. This statement scores as highly as any of the others, yet it makes precisely the opposite argument about content analysis. Yet, stepping back, the fourth statement is indeed just as concerned as the others with the ideas of "quantitative, "systematic," and "objective."
The fourth statement does not agr...