PaperIIILecturenotes

QUALITATIVE VALIDITY
Depending on their philosophical perspectives, some qualitative researchers reject the
framework of validity that is commonly accepted in more quantitative research in the
social sciences. They reject the basic realist assumption that their is a reality external to
our perception of it. Consequently, it doesn't make sense to be concerned with the
"truth" or "falsity" of an observation with respect to an external reality (which is a primary
concern of validity). These qualitative researchers argue for different standards for
judging the quality of research.
For instance, Guba and Lincoln proposed four criteria for judging the soundness of
qualitative research and explicitly offered these as an alternative to more traditional
quantitatively-oriented criteria. They felt that their four criteria better reflected the
underlying assumptions involved in much qualitative research. Their proposed criteria
and the "analogous" quantitative criteria are listed in the table.
Traditional Criteria for Judging
Quantitative Research

Alternative Criteria for Judging

Qualitative Research

internal validity

credibility

external validity

transferability

reliability

dependability

objectivity

confirmability

Credibility
The credibility criteria involves establishing that the results of qualitative research are
credible or believable from the perspective of the participant in the research. Since from
this perspective, the purpose of qualitative research is to describe or understand the
phenomena of interest from the participant's eyes, the participants are the only ones
who can legitimately judge the credibility of the results.
Transferability
Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be
generalized or transferred to other contexts or settings. From a qualitative perspective
transferability is primarily the responsibility of the one doing the generalizing. The
qualitative researcher can enhance transferability by doing a thorough job of describing
the research context and the assumptions that were central to the research. The person
who wishes to "transfer" the results to a different context is then responsible for making
the judgment of how sensible the transfer is.

Dependability
The traditional quantitative view of reliability is based on the assumption of replicability or
repeatability. Essentially it is concerned with whether we would obtain the same results
if we could observe the same thing twice. But we can't actually measure the same thing
twice -- by definition if we are measuring twice, we are measuring two different things. In
order to estimate reliability, quantitative researchers construct various hypothetical
notions (e.g., true score theory) to try to get around this fact.
The idea of dependability, on the other hand, emphasizes the need for the researcher to
account for the ever-changing context within which research occurs. The research is
responsible for describing the changes that occur in the setting and how these changes
affected the way the research approached the study.
Confirmability
Qualitative research tends to assume that each researcher brings a unique perspective
to the study. Confirmability refers to the degree to which the results could be confirmed
or corroborated by others. There are a number of strategies for enhancing
confirmability. The researcher can document the procedures for checking and
rechecking the data throughout the study. Another researcher can take a "devil's
advocate" role with respect to the results, and this process can be documented. The
researcher can actively search for and describe and negative instances that contradict
prior observations. And, after he study, one can conduct a data audit that examines the
data collection and analysis procedures and makes judgements about the potential for
bias or distortion.
There has been considerable debate among methodologists about the value and
legitimacy of this alternative set of standards for judging qualitative research. On the
one hand, many quantitative researchers see the alternative criteria as just a relabeling
of the very successful quantitative criteria in order to accrue greater legitimacy for
qualitative research. They suggest that a correct reading of the quantitative criteria
would show that they are not limited to quantitative research alone and can be applied
equally well to qualitative data. They argue that the alternative criteria represent a
different philosophical perspective that is subjectivist rather than realist in nature. They
claim that research inherently assumes that there is some reality that is being observed
and can be observed with greater or less accuracy or validity. if you don't make this
assumption, they would contend, you simply are not engaged in research (although that
doesn't mean that what you are doing is not valuable or useful).

All qualitative data can be coded quantitatively.

Anything that is qualitative can be assigned meaningful numerical values. These values
can then be manipulated to help us achieve greater insight into the meaning of the data
and to help us examine specific hypotheses. Let's consider a simple example. Many
surveys have one or more short open-ended questions that ask the respondent to supply
text responses. The simplest example is probably the "Please add any additional
comments" question that is often tacked onto a short survey. The immediate responses
are text-based and qualitative. But we can always (and usually will) perform some type

of simple classification of the text responses. We might sort the responses into simple
categories, for instance. Often, we'll give each category a short label that represents the
theme in the response.
What we don't often recognize is that even the simple act of categorizing can be viewed
as a quantitative one as well. For instance, let's say that we develop five themes that
each respondent could express in their open-ended response. Assume that we have ten
respondents. We could easily set up a simple coding table like the one in the figure
below to represent the coding of the ten responses into the five themes.

Person Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

This is a simple qualitative thematic coding analysis. But, we can represent exactly the
same information quantitatively as in the following table:

Person Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 5 Totals

1
1
1
0
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
3
1
1
0
1
0
3
4
0
1
0
1
0
2
5
0
1
0
1
1
3
6
1
1
0
0
1
3
7
0
0
1
1
1
3
8
0
1
0
1
0
2
9
0
0
1
0
1
2
10
0
0
0
1
1
2
Totals
4
6
3
7
5

Notice that this is the exact same data. The first would probably be called a qualitative
coding while the second is clearly quantitative. The quantitative coding gives us

additional useful information and makes it possible to do analyses that we couldn't do

with the qualitative coding.
Now to the other side of the coin...
All quantitative data is based on qualitative judgment.
Numbers in and of themselves can't be interpreted without understanding the
assumptions which underlie them. Take, for example, a simple 1-to-5 rating variable:

Here, the respondent answered 2=Disagree. What does this mean? How do we
interpret the value "2" here? We can't really understand this quantitative value unless
we dig into some of the judgments and assumptions that underlie it:
Did the respondent understand the term "capital punishment"?
Did the respondent understand that a "2" means that they are disagreeing with the
statement?
Does the respondent have any idea about alternatives to capital punishment (otherwise
how can they judge what's "best")?
Did the respondent read carefully enough to determine that the statement was limited
only to convicted murderers (for instance, rapists were not included)?
Does the respondent care or were they just circling anything arbitrarily?
How was this question presented in the context of the survey (e.g., did the questions
immediately before this one bias the response in any way)?
Was the respondent mentally alert (especially if this is late in a long survey or the
respondent had other things going on earlier in the day)?
What was the setting for the survey (e.g., lighting, noise and other distractions)?
Was the survey anonymous? Was it confidential?
In the respondent's mind, is the difference between a "1" and a "2" the same as between
a "2" and a "3" (i.e., is this an interval scale?)?

The bottom line here is that quantitative and qualitative data are, at some level, virtually
inseparable. Neither exists in a vacuum or can be considered totally devoid of the
other. To ask which is "better" or more "valid" or has greater "verisimilitude" or whatever
ignores the intimate connection between them. To do good research we need to use
both the qualitative and the quantitative.

TRIANGULATION
What is triangulation? Triangulation is the application and combination of several
research methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon. Triangulation was
originally used in social sciences and has now spread to psychology.

Itcanbeemployedinbothquantitative(validation)andqualitative(inquiry)
studies.

Itisamethodappropriatestrategyoffoundingthecredibilityofqualitative
analyses.

Itbecomesanalternativeto"traditionalcriterialikereliabilityandvalidity"

Itisthepreferredlineinthesocialsciences

Why use triangulation?

By combining multiple observers, theories, methods, and empirical materials,
sociologists can hope to overcome the weakness or intrinsic biases and the problems that
come from single method, single-observer, single-theory studies. Often the purpose of
triangulation in specific contexts is to obtain confirmation of findings through
convergence of different perspectives. The point at which the perspectives converge is
seen to represent reality.
Types of Triangulation:
There are four basic type of triangulation:
a. datatriangulation,involvingtime,space,andpersons
b. investigatortriangulation,whichconsistoftheuseofmultiple,ratherthansingle
observers;
c. theorytriangulation,whichconsistsofusingmorethanonetheoreticalschemein
theinterpretationofthephenomenon;
d. methodologicaltriangulation,whichinvolvesusingmorethanonemethodand
mayconsistofwithinmethodorbetweenmethodstrategies.
e. multipletriangulation,whentheresearchercombinesinoneinvestigationmultiple
observers,theoreticalperspectives,sourcesofdata,andmethodologies.

Summary of common research methods

Method
Sample Surveys

Rapid Appraisal

Participant Observation

Case Studies

Participatory Learning and Action

Specialised methods

Key Features
Collect quantitative data
through questionnaires.
Usually a random sample and
a matched control group are
used to measure predetermined indicators before
and after the intervention
A range of tools and
techniques developed
originally as rapid rural
appraisal (RRA). Involves the
use of focus groups, semistructured interviews with key
informants, case studies,
participant observation and
secondary sources
Extended residence in a
programme/project community
by field researchers using
qualitative techniques and
mini-scale sample surveys
Detailed studies of a specific
unit ( a group, locality,
organisation) involving openended questioning and the
preparation of histories.
The preparation by
beneficiaries of a programme
of timelines, impact flow
charts, village and resource
maps, well being and wealth
ranking, seasonal diagrams,
problem ranking and
institutional assessments
through group processes
assisted by a facilitator.
E.g. Photographic records and
video.

Source: Herbert and Shepherd, 2001, adapted from Hulme (1997) and Montgomery et al (1996)

Thecasestudymethod

Researchmethodoriginatedinclinicalmedicine(thecasehistory,i.e.thepatientspersonalhistory
(idiographicmethod)
Descriptionofthesymptoms,thediagnosis,thetreatmentandeventualoutcome(descriptivemethod)
butalsoinnewerresearchexplanatorycasestudies

Usesthepersonsownmemories,thememoriesoffriendsandrelatives,orrecordsofvarioustypes
suchasdiaries,photographsetc.
Oftencombinesinterviewsandobservations.
Indepthinvestigationofexperiencesthatallowtoidentifyinteractionsandinfluenceson
psychologicalprocesses
Opensupandexploreaspectsofhumanexperiencethatcanbeinvestigatedusingothertypesof
researchmethods(qualitativestudy/inductiveresearch)

The case study method often involves simply observing what happens to, or
reconstructingthecasehistoryofasingleparticipantorgroupofindividuals(suchasa
schoolclassoraspecificsocialgroup),i.e.theidiographicapproach.Casestudiesallowa
researchertoinvestigateatopicinfarmoredetailthanmightbepossibleiftheywere
tryingtodealwithalargenumberofresearchparticipants(nomotheticapproach)with
theaimofaveraging.
Thecasestudyisnotitselfaresearchmethod,butresearchersselectmethodsofdata
collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies such as
qualitative techniques (semistructured interviews, participant observation, diaries),
personalnotes (e.g.letters,photographs,notes)or official document (e.g.casenotes,
clinicalnotes,appraisalreports).Alltheapproachesmentionedhereusepreconceived
categoriesintheanalysisandtheyareideographicintheirapproach,i.e.theyfocusonthe
individualcasewithoutreferencetoacomparisongroup.
Intrinsicversusextrinsiccasestudies
Intrinsiccasestudiesrepresentnothingbutthemselves.Thecasesinintrinsiccasestudies
arechosenbecausetheyareinterestingintheirownright.Theresearcherswanttoknow
abouttheminparticular,ratherthanaboutamoregeneralproblemorphenomenon.
Extrinsic casestudies constitute exemplars ofamoregeneral phenomenon.Theyare
selected to provide the researcher with an opportunity to study the phenomenon of
interest.Theresearchquestionidentifiesaphenomenon(e.g.stress,bereavement,fame
etc)andthecasesareselectedinordertoexplorehowthephenomenonexistswithina
particularcase.Inthisdesign,individualswhoareexperiencingthephenomenonunder
investigationareallsuitablecasesforanalysis.
Datacollectionincasestudies
Researchersgatherinformationindifferentways,soalthoughinterviewing(esp.semi
structuresinterviews)isawidelyusedmethoditisnottheonlyoneusedbycasestudy
researchers.Clinicalneuropsychologistswhoareinvestigatingsomeonewhohassuffered
adistinctivebraininjurywilluseanumberofspecifictasks,designedtorevealifthere
are neurological deficits occurring as a result of the injury. These may range from
specificmemorytasks(e.g.thepersonisaskedtolistentosomethinglikeanewsreport
andthentelltheresearcherwhatitwasabout),todrawingtasksinordertodetectifthe
personshowsanykindofvisualneglect,tosingleeyeandhandednesstasks,whichmight

indicatewhetherthereareunusualdifferencesinfunctioningbetweenthetwohalvesof
theparticipantsbrain.
Smith(1997)studiedtheexperienceofpregnancyundergonebyfourwomen.Byseeing
eachofthewomenatregularintervalsthroughouttheirpregnancyandafterwards,Smith
was able to explore detailed aspects of their experiences, and also to see how their
memories of the experience changed over time and in retrospect. The womens
experienceswereexploredusinganumberofdifferenttechniques,includingrepertory
grids and diary methods, i.e. triangulation was used in order to take up different
perspectivesonhowpregnancyisperceivedbydifferentwomenovertime.
Table1.Typesofcasestudy
Thestudyofonesingleindividual,generallyusingseveraldifferentresearch
Person
methods.
Thestudyofasingledistinctivesetofpeople,suchasafamilyorsmallgroup
Group
offriends.
Thestudyofaparticular place, andthewaythat it isusedorregarded by
Location
people.
Thestudyofasingleorganisationorcompany,andthewaythatpeopleact
Organisation
withinit.
Thestudyofaparticularsocialorculturalevent,andtheinterpretationsofthat
Event
eventbythoseparticipatinginit.

Triangulation

Complexcasesmaybeseenassocial,culturalorpsychologicalsystems.Insuchcasesit
isoftenhelpfulfortheresearchertoadoptasystemsanalysisapproachtothestudy.This
involvesidentifyingthefourmajordimensionstothesystem:elements,order,processes
andfunctions.
Table2.Dimensionsofsystemanalysis
Elements
Order
Processes
Functions

Theseparatepartswhichmakeupthesystem
Coherence between the elements, e.g. patterned interactions or mutual
expectations
Changes over time, or transactions or exchanges (both psychological and
physical)
Thegoalsoroutcomesofactivitywithinthesystem

Acasecanalsobeviewedasapsychologicalfield.Theconceptofpsychologicalfield
wasfirstintroducedbyLewinin1952,anditwasawayofexpressingthecomplexityof
social experience by organising into different dimensions such as e.g. psychological
dimension, spatial dimension, cultural dimension, historical dimension and social
dimension. There are other possibilities of the psychological field, and by using
triangulationthepsychologistmaybeabletounderstandmorefullywhatisgoingon,
becausethecollectionofdifferentkindsofdataandanalysingthemtoseetowhatextent
theymayconvergetoinfluencetheexperienceorthebehaviourunderinvestigation.

Table3.Psychologicalfieldanalysis
Psychologicaldimension
Spatialdimension

Culturaldimension
Historicaldimension
Socialdimension

Aspectsofindividualexperienceandidentity.
Placesorlocationswithinwhichaparticulareventorexperienceisset
(home, prenatal clinic, school, the psychological laboratory. Orne
(1962)showedhowthiscanaffectpeoplesunderstandingofwhatis
goingon,e.g.demandcharacteristics).
Symbolsandritualsinvolvedintheevent.
Previous or related events influence on the situation or how it is
perceived
Relationships,lifestylesandsocialnetworks.

Themaincharacteristicsofthecasestudy
1. Adescriptivestudy
a. (I.e.thedatacollectedconstitutedescriptionsofpsychologicalprocessesand
events,andofthecontextsinwhichtheyoccurred(qualitativedata).
b. Themainemphasisisalwaysontheconstructionofverbaldescriptionsof
behaviourorexperiencebutquantitativedatamaybecollected.
c. Highlevelsofdetailareprovided.
2. Narrowlyfocused.
a. Typicallyacasestudyoffersadescriptionofonlyasingleindividual,and
sometimesaboutgroups.
b. Oftenthecasestudyfocusesonalimitedaspectofaperson,suchastheir
psychopathologicalsymptoms.
3. Combinesobjectiveandsubjectivedata
a. i.e.theresearchermaycombineobjectiveandsubjectivedata:Allare
regardedasvaliddataforanalysis,andasabasisforinferenceswithinthe
casestudy.
i. Theobjectivedescriptionofbehaviouranditscontext
ii. Detailsofthesubjectiveaspect,suchasfeelings,beliefs,impressions
orinterpretations.Infact,acasestudyisuniquelyabletooffera
meansofachievinganindepthunderstandingofthebehaviourand
experienceofasingleindividual.
4. Processoriented.
a. Thecasestudymethodenablestheresearchertoexploreanddescribethe
natureofprocesses,whichoccurovertime.
b. Incontrasttotheexperimentalmethod,whichbasicallyprovidesastilled
snapshotofprocesses,whichmaybecontinuingovertimelikeforexample
thedevelopmentoflanguageinchildrenovertime.

Effectsofisolationinyoungchildren1
Mason(1947)ThecasestudyofIsabellewhohadbeenkeptinisolationinadarkroom
withhermotherwhowasdeafandwithoutspeechgivesinsightintothedevelopmentof
childrenbyanextraordinarycase.Isabellehadnotbeengivenanadequatedietandhad
severerickets.Duringherisolationshecommunicatedwithhermotherusinggestures.
ThemotherescapedfromtheisolationwhenIsabellewasaboutsixyearsold.Onher
admission to hospital Isabelle behaved like a wild animal and only made croaking
sounds.Afteroneweekinthehospitalshestartedtomakespeechsoundsandseemedto
passrapidlythroughthenormalstagesofspeech.After18monthsshehadavocabulary
ofover2000words,couldreadandwrite,andcouldcomposeimaginativestories.
Koluchova (1976) This case study involves Czechoslovakian, male, identical twins
whosemotherdiedaftergivingbirth.Thetwinswenttoachildrenshomeforeleven
months,thenspentsixmonthswiththeiraunt,andthenwenttolivewiththeirfatherand
stepmother.Thefatherwasoflowintelligenceandthestepmother wasexceptionally
cruel.Theboyswereneverallowedoutofthehouseandwerekepteitherinasmall
unheatedclosetorinacellar.Theywerediscoveredattheageofseven,andtheycould
hardlywalk,hadacuterickets,wereveryfearfulandtheirspontaneousspeechwasvery
poor.Afterplacementinahospitalandlaterinafosterhomeexcellentgainsweremade.
Thechildrenarenowadultsandappearwelladjustedandcognitivelyable.
Curtiss(1977) Geniewasfoundwhenshewas13yearsold.Herhistorywasoneof
isolation,severeneglectandphysicalrestraint;shewaskeptstrappedtoachildspottyin
anattic.Herfatherpunishedherifshemadeanysound.Ondiscoveryherappearance
wasofasixorsevenyearoldchild.ShewasdescribedbyCurtissasan"unsocialised,
primitive,andhardlyhuman;"shemadevirtuallynosoundsandwashardlyabletowalk.
Geniehasnotachievedfoodsocialadjustmentorlanguagedespiteinterventionandbeing
placedinafosterhome.
Corkin(1984)H.M.was27whenbrainsurgeonsremovedmostofhishippocampusand
partoftheamygdalainalastattempttorelievethepatientssevereandlifethreatening
epilepsy.Theoperationdidachieveitsgoal,becausetheseizuresweremilderandcould
be managed withmedication. His memory, however, hadbeen affected dramatically.
AlthoughH.M.couldrecallmostoftheeventsthathadoccurredbeforetheoperation,he
could no longer remember new experiences for much longer than 15 minutes. The
declarativememories(i.e.memoriesoffactsandevents)vanishedlikewaterdownthe
drain.Withsufficientpractice,H.M.couldacquirenewskills,suchassolvingapuzzleor
playingtennis(thiskindofmemoryiscalledproceduralmemories),buthecouldnot
rememberlearningtheseskills.Norcouldhelearnnewwords,songs,stories,orfaces.
H.M.sdoctorshadtoreintroducethemselveseverytimetheysawhim.Itseemsthat
H.M.sterriblememorydeficitsinvolveaproblemintransferringexplicitmemoriesfrom
1

Cardwell,M. et al. (1996) Psychology for A level. London:Collins Educational p.380)

shorttermstorageintolongtermstorageinthefirstplace.Hewouldreadthesameissue
ofamagazineoverandoveragainwithoutrealisingit.Hecouldnotrecallthedayofthe
week,theyear,orevenhislastmeal.Today,manyyearslater,H.M.willoccasionally
recallunusuallyemotionalevens,suchastheassassinationofsomeonenamedKennedy.
Hesometimesremembersthatbothhisparentsaredead,andheknowshehasmemory
problems.ButaccordingtoSuzanneCorkin,whohasstudiedH.M.extensively,these
islandsofrememberingaretheexceptionsinavastseaofforgetfulness.Hestilldoes
notknowthescientistswhohavestudiedhimfordecades.Althoughheisnowinhis
seventies,hethinksheismuchyounger.Thisgoodnaturedmancannolongerrecognise
aphotographofhisownface;heisstuckinatimewarpfromthepast.
Advantagesofthecasestudymethod(Searle1999)2
1. Stimulating new research. A case study can sometimes highlight extraordinary
behaviour, which can stimulate new research. For example, Lurias study of the
memory man S enabled researchers to begin to investigate cases of unusual
memory abilities, and the cognitive mechanisms, which made such phenomena
possible.Withoutthecasestudy,itisunlikelythatthisareaofresearchwouldhave
beenopenedupinthesameway.
2. Contradicting established theory. Case studies may sometimes contradict
establishedpsychologicaltheories.Searlecitesthecasestudyofseverelydeprived
Czechoslovak twins, and the remarkable recovery they showed when placed in a
caring social environment, as an example of a case study which challenged the
establishedtheoryoftheearlyyearsoflifebeingacriticalperiodforhumansocial
development.
3. Givingnewinsightintophenomenaorexperience.Becausecasestudiesaresorich
ininformation,theycangiveinsightintophenomena,whichwecouldnotgaininany
otherway.Forexample,thecaseofS.B.,ablindmangivensightinadulthood,gave
researchers a particularly detailed insight into the processes and experiences of
perception,highlightingaspectsoftheexperience,whichhadnotyetpreviouslybeen
suspected.
4. Permittinginvestigationofotherwiseinaccessiblesituations. Searleclaimedthat
thecasestudygivespsychological researchers thepossibility toinvestigate cases,
whichcouldnotpossiblybeengineeredinresearchlaboratories.Oneexampleofthis
isthecaseofGenie,theseverelydeprivedchildwhosecaseenabledresearchersto
studytheeffectofextremesocialdeprivationcontinuedfrominfancytopuberty.To
create such a situation for research purposes would be totally unethical and not
possiblebutwhenGeniewasdiscoveredbysocialworkers,theuseofcasestudy
methodology permitted much deeper insights into the mechanisms, processes and
consequencesofherexperienceandrecovery.
Disadvantagesofthecasestudymethod
Searle(1999)identifiedanumberofdisadvantagestocasestudyresearch.
2

Hayes, N. (2000) Doing Psychological Research. Gathering and analysing data. Buckingham: Open
University Press. p. 133.

1. Replicationnotpossible.Uniquenessofdatameansthattheyarevalidforonlyone
person.Whilethisisstrengthinsomeformsofresearch,itisaweaknessforothers,
becauseitmeansthatfindingscannotbereplicatedandsosometypesofreliability
measuresareverylow.
2. The researchers own subjective feelings may influence the case study
(researcherbias).Boththecollectionofdataandtheinterpretationofthem.Thisis
particularly true of many of the famous case studies in psychologys history,
especiallythecasehistoryreportedbyFreud.Inunstructuredorclinicalcasestudies
theresearchersowninterpretationscaninfluencethewaythatthedataarecollected,
i.e.thereisapotentialforresearcherbias.
3. Memorydistortions. Theheavyrelianceonmemorywhenreconstructingthecase
history means that the information about past experiences and events may be
notoriously subject to distortion. Very few people have full documentation of all
variousaspectsoftheirlives,andthereisalwaysatendencythatpeoplefocuson
factorswhichtheyfindimportantthemselveswhiletheymaybeunawareofother
possibleinfluences.
4. Notpossibletoreplicatefindings.Seriousproblemsingeneralisingtheresultsofa
uniqueindividualtootherpeoplebecausethefindingsmaynotberepresentativeof
anyparticularpopulation.
Ethicalaspectsofthecasestudymethod
Inacasestudy,theresearcheroftenobtainsdeeplypersonalinformation,whichisnot
usuallysharedwithotherpeople.Thenatureofthestudymeansthatsomeofthis
informationwilleventuallybepublished,oratleastwrittenupasaresearchreport.Itis
thereforeessentialthatanyoneconductingacasestudyisveryprotectiveoftheirresearch
participantsidentityandthattheymusttrytoobscuredetailsthatcanleadtodeduction
ofidentity.Alsoitisimportantthattheresearcherhastheprofessionalcompetenceto
dealwiththeproblemsofthecasestudy,e.g.inthecaseofchildabuseoranorexia
nervosa.Thereforetheethicalguidelinessuchasinformedconsent,nodeception,rightto
withdraw,debriefingandconfidentialitymustalwaysbeobserved.

Contentanalysis
Contentanalysisisaresearchmethodinwhichanswersarecategorisedintodifferent
types,andthenumberofeachtypeiscountedup.Contentanalysiscanbeusedinmany
differentareas.Ininterviewsgeneralthemescanbeidentifiedandthenumberoftimes
theyappearcanbecounted.Ifyouanalyseforexamplediariesorotherdocuments,you
couldbeginbycountinghowmanytimesthespecifictopicsyouareinterestedinare
referredto.
Some times content analysis is referred toas aform ofqualitative analysis. This is,
however, a controversial classification, since content analysis is really a type of
numerical coding. In the days before the richness of qualitative analysis was widely

recognisedinpsychology,though,contentanalysiswasthemaintechniqueresearchers
usedfordealingwithcomplexmeanings.
The content analysis method consists of establishing a number of different content
categories,andcountingupthenumberoftimesitemsrelevanttoeachofthemoccursin
aparticularsetofdata.
Contentanalysisisreallyawayofusingsummarytablestodescribequalitativedata,i.e.
data which dont appear in the form of numbers but as words or other meaningful
informationbutinaquantitativeform.However,contentanalysisisntreallyqualitative
analysis,eventthoughitisusedwithqualitativedata.Instead,itisawayofconverting
thatqualitativedataintoquantitativeinformationofdescribingitusingnumbers.
Theessenceofcontentanalysisis categorisation.Acontentanalysisdescribesasetof
dataintermsofasetofcategories,andhowmanyexampleshavebeencountedineach
category.Thatinformationisusuallypresentedasasummarytable,withthecategories
formingthecolumns,andthesetofdataformingtherows.Thenumbers,whichappearin
the cells of the table, are the frequencies the result of counting up how often that
categoryoccursinthedataset.
Contentanalysisturnsqualitativeinformationintoquantitativedata.
Whatcontentanalysisdoes,then,istoturnqualitativeinformationintoquantitativedata,
byconvertingitintonumbers.Indoingso,itdescribestheinformationbutitalsoopens
thewayforaresearchertoperformadditionalstatisticaltestsonthematerial,ifthat
seems appropriate. The most commonly used one is chisquare, because a content
analysisgivesusnominaldata.
Anexampleofcontentanalysis:HackerandSwan(1992)3focusedondifferentaspect
ofcampaignstrategyinformsoftelevisionadvertisementspaidforbypoliticalpartiesas
ameansofsellingtheircandidate.Someoftheseadsaimtopromoteacandidates
strengthswhileatthesametimehighlightingtheopponentsweaknesses.Hackerand
SwansuggestedthatsuchadvertisementshaveastrongerinfluencethanotherTVspots
becausetheyarewatchedbyawidercrosssectionofthepopulationthanpoliticaldebates
and are presented in simpler terms. The two researchers videotaped 17 campaign
advertisements in autumn 1988 and randomly selected five from each campaign for
analysis.Theresearchersdevisedacodingsystembywatchingotheradvertisingspots,
wherethefocuswasonmutuallyexclusiveandmutuallyexhaustive.Codingunitswere
singlemessages(forexample,aspecificisolatedscene,astatementaboutacandidateora
scene). Each was classified in terms of the media dimension: oral, visual, written,
candidatenonverbal(NV)andspecialeffects.Andeachwasclassifiedintermsof14
differentmessageappealcategoriessuchaspositiveornegativetrait,nationalism,family,
humanitarianinterest,missionstatement,orfear.Allcodingwasassessedusinginter
coderreliability(0.89),andformessagesforwhichwheretherewasnotagreementwere
3

discussedandifnoagreementcouldbereached,theyweretreatedasuncodeable.The
resultsshowedadifferenceinthesensethattheBushcampaignusedsignificantlymore
positive messages than the Dukakis campaign. One other difference was that the
Dukakiscampaignemphasisedthevisionaryappealofthecandidate.Thesemayhave
beenperceivedasirrelevantbecauseoftheinsufficientnumberofpositiveimages,orit
maybethatmanymembersoftheelectoratesimplyfindsuchappealsirrelevant.
TheresearcherspresentedsomeoftheresultsinasummarytablewheretheFratio(or
varianceratio)showedthedifferencesbetweenmeanscoresofthetwogroupsandthe
variationofscoreswithineachdatasetinordertoseeifthekindofdifferencesshouldbe
expectedjustfromrandomvariationorindividualdifferences.TheFratio(orvariance
ratio)isastatisticthatexpressestheratiobetweenthetwodifferenttypesofvariationin
thedata,anditdoesthisbydividingthebetweengroupsvariationbythewithingroups
variation.

Table1.Comparisonofappealsvs.campaigns

Campaign

Positive
association
Negative
association
Positiverecord
Negativerecord
Rhetorical
question
Family
Humanitarian
interest
Positivetrait
Negativetrait
Idealvision
statement
Nationalism
Fear
Positiveissue
statement
Negativeissue
statement

Bush
Mean
Standarddeviation
o.40
1.08

Dukakis
Mean
SD
0
0

Fratio
3.43

2.0

1.50

0.56

1.16

0.40

2.28
0.72
0.16

3.70
1.62
0.37

0.32
0.52
0.20

0.90
1.05
0.41

6.61*
0.27
0.13

0.08

0.28

2.09

0.08

0.28

2.09

1.80
0.52
0.20

2.24
1.16
0.41

0.72
0.76
0.96

0.61
1.23
1.67

5.42*
0.50
4.88*

0.08
0.36
0

0.28
0.64
0

0.04
0.24
0.16

0.20
0.52
0.55

0.34
0.53
2.09

0.12

0.44

1.86

*=p<.05
Summarytablesareusedinalmostallkindsofquantitativeresearch.Theyarewaysof
summarisingmorethanonesetofdata,sothatthesimilaritiesanddifferencesproduced
by variables or factors can be seen as easily as possible. Summary tables often use
measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion. The convention used for
summarytablesinresearchpapersistolistthevariablesofthestudyalongthelefthand
side,sothattheyformtherowsofthetable,andthestatisticalmeasuresalongthetop,so
thattheyformthecolumns.Ifwehadtodrawatablethatreportedthestudyoftwo
differentteachingmethods(AandB)toteachchildrentoread,thetwomethodswouldbe
listedastherowsofthetable,andthemeanscoresandstandarddeviationsobtainedfrom
ourtestresultsatthetop.Readingalongarowwouldthensayhowasinglemethod
scored;readingdownthemeancolumnwouldtelluswhetherthemeansofthetwo
groupswereverydifferent;andreadingdownthestandarddeviationcolumnwould
enableustocomparethestandarddeviationsofthetwosetsofscores.

Table2.Methodsofteachingreading:resultsfromareadingaccuracytest.
Mean
MethodA
MethodB

15.3
16.2

Standard
deviation
3.7
4.1

N
106
120