内容分析或主题分析:博士生对异同的认知

Q3 Business, Management and Accounting Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Pub Date : 2022-11-08 DOI:10.34190/ejbrm.20.3.2920
Niklas Humble, Peter Mozelius
{"title":"内容分析或主题分析:博士生对异同的认知","authors":"Niklas Humble, Peter Mozelius","doi":"10.34190/ejbrm.20.3.2920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a review of content analysis or thematic analysis which is further explored though the lens of impressions of doctoral students who attended a presentation on the subject.The long tradition of quantitative research still dominates many university courses on research methodology and data analysis. During the 20th century the field of qualitative research has had a growing need for new analysis methods that accommodate qualitative data and two frequently used methods are content analysis and thematic analysis. They have several things in common and sometimes, they have been understood by researchers to be interchangeably. It has been argued by some researchers that conventional content analysis has really the same functional approach to analysing data as an inductive thematic analysis. This study reports on two webinars on qualitative analysis involving doctoral students and facilitated by the authors. The webinars presented, discussed content analysis and thematic analysis, and gathered participants’ reflections on these methods using a Padlet (padlet.com). The aim of the study was to analyse and describe doctoral students' perceptions of content analysis and thematic analysis. The data collected has been analysed using conventional content analysis applying an abductive coding approach. The study identifies several perceived similarities and differences between the two methods, but also opportunities and challenges for applying them. Findings highlight that the two methods are perceived to be applicable to different types of research. Furthermore, they offer similar challenges to the researcher including their potential for bias and could be considered a choice between an intuitive and a practical approach to analysis. Many of the identified perceptions can be related to previous literature on content analysis and thematic analysis. However, other perceptions seems to indicates a need for more thorough and nuanced discussions on methods for qualitative analysis. The study suggest that more efforts should be made to support doctoral students in attaining a nuanced understanding of qualitative methods for analysis.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Content Analysis or Thematic Analysis: Doctoral Students' Perceptions of Similarities and Differences\",\"authors\":\"Niklas Humble, Peter Mozelius\",\"doi\":\"10.34190/ejbrm.20.3.2920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper is a review of content analysis or thematic analysis which is further explored though the lens of impressions of doctoral students who attended a presentation on the subject.The long tradition of quantitative research still dominates many university courses on research methodology and data analysis. During the 20th century the field of qualitative research has had a growing need for new analysis methods that accommodate qualitative data and two frequently used methods are content analysis and thematic analysis. They have several things in common and sometimes, they have been understood by researchers to be interchangeably. It has been argued by some researchers that conventional content analysis has really the same functional approach to analysing data as an inductive thematic analysis. This study reports on two webinars on qualitative analysis involving doctoral students and facilitated by the authors. The webinars presented, discussed content analysis and thematic analysis, and gathered participants’ reflections on these methods using a Padlet (padlet.com). The aim of the study was to analyse and describe doctoral students' perceptions of content analysis and thematic analysis. The data collected has been analysed using conventional content analysis applying an abductive coding approach. The study identifies several perceived similarities and differences between the two methods, but also opportunities and challenges for applying them. Findings highlight that the two methods are perceived to be applicable to different types of research. Furthermore, they offer similar challenges to the researcher including their potential for bias and could be considered a choice between an intuitive and a practical approach to analysis. Many of the identified perceptions can be related to previous literature on content analysis and thematic analysis. However, other perceptions seems to indicates a need for more thorough and nuanced discussions on methods for qualitative analysis. The study suggest that more efforts should be made to support doctoral students in attaining a nuanced understanding of qualitative methods for analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.20.3.2920\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.20.3.2920","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文是对内容分析或主题分析的回顾,通过参加该主题演讲的博士生的印象镜头进一步探索。定量研究的悠久传统仍然主导着许多大学的研究方法论和数据分析课程。在20世纪,定性研究领域对适应定性数据的新分析方法的需求日益增长,常用的两种方法是内容分析和主题分析。它们有几个共同点,有时,研究人员认为它们是可以互换的。一些研究人员认为,传统的内容分析实际上与归纳主题分析具有相同的功能方法来分析数据。本研究报告了两个由作者促成的博士生参与的定性分析网络研讨会。这些网络研讨会介绍、讨论了内容分析和主题分析,并利用Padlet (padlet.com)收集与会者对这些方法的思考。本研究的目的是分析和描述博士生对内容分析和主题分析的看法。所收集的数据已使用传统的内容分析应用溯因编码方法进行分析。该研究确定了两种方法之间的一些可感知的异同,但也指出了应用它们的机遇和挑战。研究结果强调,这两种方法被认为适用于不同类型的研究。此外,它们为研究人员提供了类似的挑战,包括其潜在的偏见,可以被认为是直观和实用的分析方法之间的选择。许多已确定的看法可以与先前关于内容分析和主题分析的文献有关。然而,其他看法似乎表明需要对定性分析方法进行更彻底和细致入微的讨论。这项研究表明,应该做出更多的努力来支持博士生获得对定性分析方法的细致理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Content Analysis or Thematic Analysis: Doctoral Students' Perceptions of Similarities and Differences
This paper is a review of content analysis or thematic analysis which is further explored though the lens of impressions of doctoral students who attended a presentation on the subject.The long tradition of quantitative research still dominates many university courses on research methodology and data analysis. During the 20th century the field of qualitative research has had a growing need for new analysis methods that accommodate qualitative data and two frequently used methods are content analysis and thematic analysis. They have several things in common and sometimes, they have been understood by researchers to be interchangeably. It has been argued by some researchers that conventional content analysis has really the same functional approach to analysing data as an inductive thematic analysis. This study reports on two webinars on qualitative analysis involving doctoral students and facilitated by the authors. The webinars presented, discussed content analysis and thematic analysis, and gathered participants’ reflections on these methods using a Padlet (padlet.com). The aim of the study was to analyse and describe doctoral students' perceptions of content analysis and thematic analysis. The data collected has been analysed using conventional content analysis applying an abductive coding approach. The study identifies several perceived similarities and differences between the two methods, but also opportunities and challenges for applying them. Findings highlight that the two methods are perceived to be applicable to different types of research. Furthermore, they offer similar challenges to the researcher including their potential for bias and could be considered a choice between an intuitive and a practical approach to analysis. Many of the identified perceptions can be related to previous literature on content analysis and thematic analysis. However, other perceptions seems to indicates a need for more thorough and nuanced discussions on methods for qualitative analysis. The study suggest that more efforts should be made to support doctoral students in attaining a nuanced understanding of qualitative methods for analysis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (EJBRM) provides perspectives on topics relevant to research methods applied in the field of business and management. Through its publication the journal contributes to the development of theory and practice. The journal accepts academically robust papers that contribute to the area of research methods applied in business and management research. Papers submitted to the journal are double-blind reviewed by members of the reviewer committee or other suitably qualified readers. The Editor reserves the right to reject papers that, in the view of the editorial board, are either of insufficient quality, or are not relevant enough to the subject area. The editor is happy to discuss contributions before submission. The journal publishes work in the categories described below. Research Papers: These may be qualitative or quantitative, empirical or theoretical in nature and can discuss completed research findings or work in progress. Case Studies: Case studies are welcomed illustrating business and management research methods in practise. View Points: View points are less academically rigorous articles usually in areas of controversy which will fuel some interesting debate. Conference Reports and Book Reviews: Anyone who attends a conference or reads a book that they feel contributes to the area of Business Research Methods is encouraged to submit a review for publication.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling Endogeneity: A Systematic Review of Methodologies in Digital Leadership and Remote Work Research Double Bias of Mistakes: Essence, Consequences, and Measurement Method Statistically Validating a Theory Represented by a Venn Diagram How Cognitive Biases Influence Problematic Research Methods Practices Using Mixed Methods to Understand Tax Compliance Behaviour
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1