Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contextual content analysis

  • Method of Inquiry Paper
  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article suggests one way to systematically code textual data for research. The approach utilizes computer content analysis to examine patterns of emphasized ideas in text as well as the social context or underlying perspective reflected in the text. A conceptual dictionary is used to organize word meanings. An extensive profile of word meanings is used to characterize and discriminate social contexts. Social contexts are analyzed in relation to four reference dimensions (traditional, practical, emotional and analytic) which are used in the social science literature. The approach is illustrated with five widely varying texts, analyzed with selected comparative data. This approach has been useful in many social science investigations to system-atically score open-ended textual information. Scores can be incorporated into quantitative analysis with other data, used as a guide to qualitative studies, and to help integrate strengths of quantitative and qualitative approaches to research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

C-scores:

Contextual scores

E-scores:

Idea/emphasis scores

KWIC:

Key Word In Context

MCCA:

Minnesota Contextual Content Analysis

References

  • Andren, G. (1981). “Reliability and content analysis”, chapter 2 in K.E. Rosengren (ed.), Advances in Content Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A.B. (1970). “Structure of semantic space”, chapter 17 in E.F. Borgatta & G. W. Bohrnstedt (eds.), Sociological Methodology: 1970. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S.R. (1983). “Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures”, Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 393–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, E. (1978). Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. San Francisco, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H.S. & Gordon, A.C. (1982). “Field work with the computer: criteria for assessing programs”, paper presented at the April, 1982 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society.

  • Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communications Research. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B. (1954). “Content analysis”, in G. Lindzey (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology volume 1. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J.B. (ed.) (1957). Language. Thought. and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Boston, MA: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, C.E. (1972). “Institutional rhetorics as universes of discourse”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, C.E., McTavish, D. & Pirro, E.B. (1974). “Contextual content analysis”, Proceedings of the ISSC/CISS Workshop on Content Analysis in the Social Sciences, a conference sponsored by the Standing Committee on Social Science Data of the International Social Science Council, UNESCO, Centro Nazionale Universitario del Calcolo Eletronico (CUNCE), Pisa, Italy, September 5–13, 1974.

  • Conrad, P. & Reinharz, S. (eds) (1984). “Computers and qualitative data”, special issue of Qualitative Sociology 7:1&2.

  • Deese, J. (1965). The Structure of Associations in Language and Thought. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, D. (1985). “Review of the literature on organizational culture”, Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, D. & McTavish, D.G. (1983). “Contextual content analysis of interviews with selected prison in-mates: A technical note”, mimeo. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbner, G., Holsti, O.R., Krippendorff, K., Paisley, W.J. & Stone, P.J. (eds) (1969). The Analysis of Communications Content: Developments in Scientific Theories and Computer Techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, A.D. (1973). “On language in society: Part I”, Contemporary Sociology 2 (6): 575–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, A.D. (1974). “On language in society: Part II”, Contemporary Sociology 3 (1): 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, A.D. (1980). “Social interactional and sociolinguistic rules”, Social Forces 58 (3): 789–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R.P. (1984). Verbal Style and Presidency: A Computer-Based Analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O. (1968). “Content analysis”, chapter 16 in G. Lindzey & E. Aronson, (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology. 2nd edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O.R. & North, R.C. (1966). “Perceptions of hostility and economic variables”, pp. 169–190 in R. Merritt & S. Rokkan (eds.), Comparing Nations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of Behavioral Research. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucera, H. & Francis, W.N. (1967). Computerized Dictionary of Present-Day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H.D. (1968). Propaganda Technique in the World War. New York, NY: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H.D., Learner, D. & de Sola Pool, I. (eds) (1952). The Comparative Study of Symbols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindkvist, K. (1981). Approaches to Textual Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markoff, J., Shapiro, G. & Weitman, S.R. (1975). “Toward the integration of content analysis and general methodology”, in D.R. Heise (ed.), Sociological Methodology: 1975. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martel, M.U. (1968). “Age-sex roles in American magazine fiction (1890–1955)”, in B.L. Neugarten (ed.), Middle Age and Aging: A Reader in Social Psychology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. & Weidetke, B. (1979). “Testing marriage climate”, MA theses, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naisbett, J. (1982). Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. New York, NY: Warner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Namenwirth, J.Z. (1968). “Contextual content analysis”, mimeo. Yale University.

  • Namenwirth, J.Z. & Lasswell, H.D. (1970). The Changing Language of American Values: A Computer Study of Selected Party Platforms. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, R.C., Holsti, O.R., Zaninovich, M.G. & Zinnes, D.A. (1963). Content Analysis: A Handbook with Applications for the Study of International Crisis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie, D.M., Stone, P.J. & Schneidman, E.S. (1966). “Some characteristics of genuine versus simulated suicide notes”, in Stone et al. The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J. & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1964). Social Structure and Personality. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. & Brewer, T. (1965). “The Laswell value dictionary”, mimeo. Yale University.

  • Pierce, J., McTavish, D.G. & Knudsen, K.R. (1986). “The measurement of job design: A content analytic look at scale validity”, Journal of Occupational Behavior 7: 299–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirro, E.B. (1968). “A computer analysis of African political ideology: Ghana, Guinea”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale.

  • Pirro, E.B. (1981). “Financial study of west coast banking”, unpublished manuscript. Iowa State University, Ames.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirro, E.B. & McTavish, D.G. (1982). “Contextual-conceptual dictionary, version one”, mimeo, & “version two”, in preparation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pool, I. de Sola, (ed.) (1959). Trends in Content Analysis. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochberg-Halton, E. (1982). “Situation, structure and the context of meaning”, The Sociological Quarterly 23: 455–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, A. (ed.) (1962). Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosengren, K.E. (ed.) (1981). Advances in Content Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sankoff, G. (ed.) (1980). The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlagheck, D. (1985). “Contextual and conceptual content analysis in the study of foreign policy decision-making”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, G.P. & Farberman, H.J. (eds.) (1970). Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction. Waltham, MA: Xerox College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P.J., Dumphy, D.C. Smith, M.S. & Ogilvie, D.M. (1966). The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R.P. (1983). “Measurement models for content analysis”, Quality and Quantity 17: 127–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R.P. (1985). Basic Content Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M. (1980). “Alternatives and options in computer content analysis”, Social Science Research 9: 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, D.L. (1982). “A content analytic study of religious meaning and life satisfaction”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Donald G. McTavish

  2. Department of Political Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

    Ellen B. Pirro

Authors
  1. Donald G. McTavish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellen B. Pirro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

An early version of this paper was presented at the Pacific Sociological Association Meetings, Seattle, April 12, 1984.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McTavish, D.G., Pirro, E.B. Contextual content analysis. Qual Quant 24, 245–265 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139259

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139259

Keywords

Search

Navigation