Although both modern and postmodern scholars have criticized the method of content analysis with allegations of reductionism and other epistemological limitations, it is argued here that these criticisms are ill founded. In building an argument for the validity of content analysis, the general value of artifact or text study is first considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berelson, B.
(1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Hafner.
2.
Evans, W. A.
(1990). The interpretive turn in media research: Innovation, iteration, or illusion? Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 147-168.
3.
Gamson, W. A.
(1989). News as framing: Comments on Graber. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 157-161.
4.
Gerbner, G.
(1974). Teacher image in mass culture: Symbolic functions of the “hidden curriculum.” In D. E. Olson (Ed.), Media and symbols: The forms of expression, communication, and education (pp. 470-497). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Glassner, B.
, & Corzine, J. (1982). Library research as fieldwork: A strategy for qualitative content analysis. Sociology and Social Research, 66, 305-319.
6.
Graber, D. A.
(1989). Content and meaning: What's it all about? American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 144-152.
7.
Greenberg, B. S.
(1989). On other perspectives toward message analysis: Commentary on Kepplinger. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 183-186.
8.
Harris, M.
(1979). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. New York: Random House.
9.
Jackson, L.
(1991). The poverty of structuralism: Literature and structuralist theory. New York: Longman.
10.
Kepplinger, H. M.
(1989). Content analysis and reception analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 175-182.
11.
Lefebvre, H.
(1991). Critique of everyday live (J. Moore, Trans.). New York: Verso.
12.
Livingstone, S. M.
(1989). Audience reception and the analysis of program meaning: Comments on Kepplinger. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 187-190.
13.
McCormick, T.
(1982). Content analysis: The social history of a method. Studies in Communications, 2, 143-178.
14.
Mead, M.
(1953). The study of culture at a distance. In M. Mead & R. Metraux (Eds.), The study of culture at a distance (pp. 3-58). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Merton, R. K.
(1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
16.
Ross, R. N.
(1976). Content analysis: Quantitative semantics in literary studies and political science. Style, 10, 442-466.
17.
Scholes, R.
(1985). Textual power: Literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
Thomas, S.
(1981). Learning what people learn from the media: Some problems with interviewing techniques. Mass Communication Review, 8, 2-10.
19.
Thomas, S.
(Ed.). (1982). Film / culture: Explorations of cinema in its social context. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.
20.
Wuthnow, R.
(1992). Infrastructure and superstructure: Revisions in Marxist sociology of culture. In R. Munch & N. J. Smelser (Eds.), Theory of culture (pp. 145-170). Berkeley: University of California Press.
21.
Woodrum, E.
(1984). “Mainstreaming” content analysis in social science: Methodological advantages, obstacles, and solutions. Social Science Research, 13, 1-19.
