How does content analysis work?

Ezzy (2002: 83) suggests that content analysis starts

with a sample of texts (the units), defines the units of
analysis (e.g. words, sentences) and the categories to be
used for analysis, reviews the texts in order to code
them and place them into categories, and then counts
and logs the oc-currences of words, codes and
categories. From here statistical analysis and
quantitative methods are applied, leading to an
interpretation of the re-sults. Put simply, content
analysis involves coding, categorizing (creating
meaningful categories into which the units of analysis
words, phrases, sen-tences etc. can be placed),
comparing (categories and making links between them),
and conclud-ing drawing theoretical conclusions from
the text.
Anderson and Arsenault (1998: 102) indicate the
quantitative nature of content analysis when they state
that at its simplest level, content analysis involves
counting concepts, words or occurrences in documents
and reporting them in tabular form. This succinct
statement catches essential features of the process of
content analysis:

breaking down text into units of analysis

undertaking statistical analysis of the units

presenting the analysis in as economical a form as
possible.

This masks some other important features of content

analysis, including, for example, examination of the
interconnectedness of units of analysis (categories), the
emergent nature of themes and the testing, development
and generation of theory. The whole process of content
analysis can follow eleven steps.

Step 1: Define the research questions to be

addressed by the content analysis
This will also include what one wants from the texts to
be content-analysed. The research questions will be
informed by, indeed may be derived from, the theory to
be tested.

Step 2: Define the population from which
units of text are to be sampled
The population here refers not only to people but
also, and mainly, to text the domains of the
analysis. For example, is it to be newspapers,
programmes, interview transcripts, textbooks,
conversations, public domain documents,
examination scripts, emails, online conversations
and so on?
Step 3: Define the sample to be included
Here the rules for sampling people can apply
equally well to documents. One has to decide
whether to opt for a probability or non-probability
sample of documents, a stratified sample (and, if
so, the kind of strata to be used), random sampling,
convenience sampling, domain sampling, cluster
sampling, purposive, systematic, time sampling,
snowball and so on (see Chapter 4). Robson (1993:
275 9) indicates the careful delineation of the
sampling strategy here, for example, such-and-
such a set of documents, such-and-such a time
frame (e.g. of newspapers), such-and-such a
number of television programmes or interviews.
The key issues of sampling apply to the sampling
of texts: representativeness, access, size of the
sample and generalizability of the results.
Krippendorp (2004: 145) indicates that there
may be nested recording units, where one unit is
nested within another, for example, with regard to
newspapers that have been sampled it may be thus:
the issues of a newspaper sampled; the articles in an
issue of a newspaper sampled; the paragraphs in an
article in an issue of a newspaper sampled; the
propositions constituting a paragraph in an article in
an issue of a newspaper sampled.
(Krippendorp 2004: 145)
This is the equivalent of stage sampling, discussed
in Chapter 4.
Step 4: Define the context of the
generation of the document
This will examine, for example: how the material
was generated (Flick 1998: 193); who was
HOW DOES CONTENT ANALYSIS WORK?477
Chapter
involved; who was present; where the documents
come from; how the material was recorded and/or
edited; whether the person was willing to, able
to, and did tell the truth; whether the data are
accurately reported (Robson 1993: 273); whether
23
the data are corroborated; the authenticity and
credibility of the documents; the context of the
generation of the document; the selection and
evaluation of the evidence contained in the
document.
Step 5: Define the units of analysis
This can be at very many levels, for example,
a word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, whole text,
people and themes. Robson (1993: 276) includes
here, for newspaper analysis, the number of stories
on a topic, column inches, size of headline, number
of stories on a page, position of stories within a
newspaper, the number and type of pictures. His
suggestions indicate the careful thought that needs
to go into the selection of the units of analysis.
Different levels of analysis will raise different
issues of reliability, and these are discussed later.
It is assumed that the units of analysis will be
classifiable into the same category text with the
same or similar meaning in the context of the text
itself (semantic validity) (Krippendorp 2004: 296),
although this can be problematic (discussed later).
The description of units of analysis will also include
the units of measurement and enumeration.
The coding unit defines the smallest element of
material that can be analysed, while the contextual
unit defines the largest textual unit that may appear
in a single category.
Krippendorp (2004: 99 101) distinguishes
three kinds of units. Sampling units are those units
that are included in, or excluded from, an analysis;
they are units of selection. Recording/coding units
are units that are contained within sampling
units and are smaller than sampling units,
thereby avoiding the complexity that characterises
sampling units; they are units of description.
Context units are units of textual matter that set
limits on the information to be considered in the
description of recording units; they are units that
delineate the scope of information that coders
CONTENT ANALYSIS AND GROUNDED THEORY
need to consult in characterising the recording
units (Krippendorp 2004: 101, 103).
Krippendorp (2004) continues by suggesting a
further five kinds of sampling units: physical
(e.g. time, place, size); syntactical (words,
grammar, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, series
etc.); categorical (members of a category have
something in common); propositional
(delineating particular constructions or
propositions); and thematic (putting texts into
themes and combinations of categories). The
issue of categories signals the next step. The
criterion here is that each unit of analysis
(category conceptual, actual, classification
element, cluster, issue) should be as discrete as
possible while retaining fidelity to the integrity of
the whole, i.e. that each unit must be a fair rather
than a distorted representation of the context and
other data. The creation of units of analysis can
be done by ascribing codes to the data (Miles and
Huberman 1984). This is akin to the process of
unitizing (Lincoln and Guba 1985: 203).
Step 6: Decide the codes to be used in
the analysis
Codes can be at different levels of specificity and
generality when defining content and con-cepts.
There may be some codes which subsume others,
thereby creating a hierarchy of subsump-tion
subordination and superordination in ef-fect
creating a tree diagram of codes. Some codes are
very general; others are more specific. Codes are
astringent, pulling together a wealth of ma-terial
into some order and structure. They keep words as
words; they maintain context specificity. Codes may
be descriptive and might include (Bog-dan and
Biklen 1992: 167 72): situation codes;
perspectives held by subjects; ways of thinking
about people and objects; process codes; activity
codes; event codes; strategy codes; relationship and
social structure codes; methods codes. However, to
be faithful to the data, the codes themselves derive
from the data responsively rather than be-ing
created pre-ordinately. Hence the researcher will go
through the data ascribing codes to each piece of
datum. A code is a word or abbreviation
sufficiently close to that which it is describing for
the researcher to see at a glance what it means (in
this respect it is unlike a number). For example,
the code trust might refer to a persons
trustwor-thiness; the code power might refer to
the status or power of the person in the group.
Miles and Huberman (1984) advise that codes
should be kept as discrete as possible and that
coding should start earlier rather than later as late
coding enfeebles the analysis, although there is a
risk that early coding might influence too strongly
any later codes. It is possible, they suggest, for as
many as ninety codes to be held in the working
memory while going through data, although clearly,
there is a process of iteration and reiteration
whereby some codes that are used in the early
stages of coding might be modified subsequently
and vice versa, necessitating the researcher to go
through a data set more than once to ensure
consistency, refinement, modification and
exhaustiveness of coding (some codes might
become redundant, others might need to be broken
down into finer codes). By coding up the data the
researcher is able to detect frequencies (which codes
are occurring most commonly) and patterns (which
codes occur together).
Hammersley and Atkinson (1983: 177 8)
propose that the first activity here is to read and
reread the data to become thoroughly familiar
with them, noting also any interesting patterns,
any surprising, puzzling or unexpected features,
any apparent inconsistencies or contradictions
(e.g. between groups, within and between
individuals and groups, between what people say
and what they do).
Step 7: Construct the categories
for analysis
Categories are the main groupings of constructs or
key features of the text, showing links between units
of analysis. For example, a text concerning teacher
stress could have groupings such as causes of
teacher stress, the nature of teacher stress, ways
of coping with stress and the effects of stress. The
researcher will have to decide whether to have
mutually exclusive categories (preferable

but difficult), how broad or narrow each category
will be, the order or level of generality of a
category (some categories may be very general and
subsume other more specific categories, in which
case analysis should only operate at the same level
of each category rather than having the same
analysis which combines and uses different levels
of categories). Categories are inferred by the
researcher, whereas specific words or units of
analysis are less inferential; the more one moves
towards inference, the more reliability may be
compromised, and the more the researchers
agenda may impose itself on the data.
Categories will need to be exhaustive in order to
address content validity; indeed Robson (1993:
277) argues that a content analysis is no better
than its system of categories and that these can
include: subject matter; direction (how a matter is
treated positively or negatively); values; goals;
method used to achieve goals; traits
(characteristics used to describe people); actors
(who is being discussed); authority (in whose
name the statements are being made); location;
conflict (sources and levels); and endings (how
conflicts are resolved).
This stage (i.e. constructing the categories) is
sometimes termed the creation of a domain
analysis. This involves grouping the units into
domains, clusters, groups, patterns, themes and
coherent sets to form domains. A domain is any
symbolic category that includes other categories
(Spradley 1979: 100). At this stage it might be
useful for the researcher to recode the data into
domain codes, or to review the codes used to see
how they naturally fall into clusters, perhaps
creating overarching codes for each cluster.
Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) show how items
can be assigned to more than one category and,
indeed, see this as desirable as it maintains the
richness of the data. This is akin to the process of
categorization (Lincoln and Guba 1985), putting
unitized data to provide descriptive and
inferential information. Unitization is the process
of putting data into meaning units for analysis,
examining data, and identifying what those units
are. A meaning unit is simply a piece of datum
which the researcher
HOW DOES CONTENT ANALYSIS WORK?479
Chapter
considers to be important; it may be as small as a
word or phrase, or as large as a paragraph, groups
of paragraphs, or, indeed, a whole text, provided
that it has meaning in itself.
Spradley (1979) suggests that establishing
23
domains can be achieved by four analytic tasks:
selecting a sample of verbatim interview and
field notes
looking for the names of things
identifying possible terms from the sample
searching through additional notes for other
items to include.
He identifies six steps to achieve these tasks:
select a single semantic relationship
prepare a domain analysis sheet
select a sample of statements from respondents
search for possible cover terms and include
those that fit the semantic relationship
identified
formulate structural questions for each domain
identified
list all the hypothesized domains.
Domain analysis, then, strives to discover
relationships between symbols (Spradley 1979:
157).
Like codes, categories can be at different levels
of specificity and generality. Some categories are
general and overarching; others are less so.
Typically codes are much more specific than
categories. This indicates the difference between
nodes and codes. A code is a label for a piece of
text; a node is a category into which different
codes fall or are collected. A node can be a
concept, idea, process, group of people, place or,
indeed, any other grouping that the researcher
wishes it to be; it is an organizing category.
Whereas codes describe specific textual moments,
nodes draw together codes into a categorical
framework, making connections between coded
segments and concepts. It is rather like saying that
a text can be regarded as a book, with the chapters
being the nodes and the paragraphs being the
codes, or the content pages being the nodes and the
index being the codes. Nodes can be related in
several ways, for example: one concept can define
CONTENT ANALYSIS AND GROUNDED THEORY
another; they can be logically related; and they
can be empirically related (found to accompany
each other) (Krippendorp 2004: 296).
One has to be aware that the construction of
codes and categories might steer the research and
its findings, i.e. that the researcher may enter too
far into the research process. For example, a
researcher may have been examining the extra-
curricular activities of a school and discovered
that the benefits of these are to be found in non-
cognitive and non-academic spheres rather than
in academic spheres, but this may be fallacious. It
could be that it was the codes and categories
themselves rather than the data in the minds of
the respondents that caused this separation of
cognitive/academic spheres and issues from the
non-cognitive/non-academic, and that if the
researcher had specifically asked about or
established codes and categories which
established the connection between the academic
and non-academic, then the researcher would
have found more than he or she did. This is the
danger of using codes and categories to predefine
the data analysis.
Step 8: Conduct the coding
and categorizing of the data
Once the codes and categories have been decided,
the analysis can be undertaken. This concerns the
actual ascription of codes and categories to the text.
Coding has been defined by Kerlinger (1970) as the
translation of question responses and respondent
information to specific categories for the purpose of
analysis. As we have seen, many questions are
precoded, that is, each response can be immediately
and directly converted into a score in an objective
way. Rating scales and checklists are examples of
precoded questions. Coding is the ascription of a
category label to a piece of data; which is either
decided in advance or in response to the data that
have been collected.
Mayring (2004: 268 9) suggests that summa-
rizing content analysis reduces the material to
manageable proportions while maintaining fidelity
to essential contents, and that inductive category
formation proceeds through summarizing content
analysis by inductively generating categories from
the text material. This is in contrast to explicit con-
tent analysis, the opposite of summarizing content
analysis, which seeks to add in further informa-tion
in the search for intelligible text analysis and
category location. The former reduces contex-tual
detail, the latter retains it. Structuring content
analysis filters out parts of the text in order to con-
struct a cross-section of the material using specified
pre-ordinate criteria.
It is important to decide whether to code simply
for the existence or the incidence of the concept.
This is important, as it would mean that, in the case
of the former existence the frequency of a
concept would be lost, and frequency may give an
indication of the significance of a concept in the
text. Further, the coding will need to decide whether
it should code only the exact words or those with a
similar meaning. The former will probably result in
significant data loss, as words are not often repeated
in comparison to the concepts that they signify; the
latter may risk losing the nuanced sensitivity of
particular words and phrases. Indeed some
speechmakers may deliberately use ambiguous
words or those with more than one meaning.
In coding a piece of transcription the researcher
goes through the data systematically, typically line
by line, and writes a descriptive code by the side of
each piece of datum, for example:
Text Code
The students will undertake PROB
problem-solving in science
I prefer to teach mixed ability classes MIXABIL
One can see that the codes here are abbreviations,
enabling the researcher to understand immediately
the issue that they denote because they resemble
that issue (rather than, for example, ascribing a
number as a code for each piece of datum, where
the number provides no clue as to what the datum or
category concerns). Where they are not
abbreviations, Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest
that the coding label should bear sufficient
resemblance to the original data so that the
researcher can know, by looking at the code, what
the original piece of datum concerned.

There are several computer packages that can help
the coder here (e.g. ETHNOGRAPH, N-Vivo),
though they require the original transcript to be
entered onto the computer. One such, Code-A-
Text, is particularly useful for analysing dialogues
both quantitatively and qualitatively (the system
also accepts sound and video input).
Having performed the first round of coding, the
researcher is able to detect patterns, themes and
begin to make generalizations (e.g. by counting the
frequencies of codes). The researcher can also
group codes into more general clusters, each with a
code, i.e. begin the move towards factoring the
data.
Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest that it is
possible to keep as many as ninety codes in the
working memory at any one time, though they
make the point that data might be recoded on a
second or third reading, as codes that were used
early on might have to be refined in light of codes
that are used later, either to make the codes more
discriminating or to conflate codes that are
unnecessarily specific. Codes, they argue, should
enable the researcher to catch the complexity and
comprehensiveness of the data.
Perhaps the biggest problem concerns the coding
and scoring of open-ended questions. Two solutions
are possible here. Even though a response is open-
ended, an interviewer, for example, may precode the
interview schedule so that while an interviewee is
responding freely, the interviewer is assigning the
content of the responses, or parts of it, to
predetermined coding categories. Classifications of
this kind may be developed during pilot studies.
Alternatively, data may be postcoded. Having
recorded the interviewees response, for example,
either by summarizing it during or after the
interview itself, or verbatim by tape-recorder, the
researcher may subject it to content analysis and
apply it to one of the available scoring procedures
scaling, scoring, rank scoring, response counting,
etc.
Step 9: Conduct the data analysis
Once the data have been coded and categorized,
the researcher can count the frequency of each
HOW DOES CONTENT ANALYSIS WORK?481
Chapter
code or word in the text, and the number of
words in each category. This is the process of
retrieval, which may be in multiple modes, for
example words, codes, nodes and categories. Some
words may be in more than one category, for
23
example where one category is an overarching
category and another is a subcategory. To ensure
reliability, Weber (1990: 21 4) suggests that it is
advisable at first to work on small samples of text
rather than the whole text, to test out the coding
and categorization, and make amendments where
necessary. The complete texts should be analysed,
as this preserves their semantic coherence.
Words and single codes on their own have
limited power, and so it is important to move to
associations between words and codes, i.e. to look
at categories and relationships between categories.
Establishing relationships and linkages between
the domains ensures that the data, their richness
and context-groundedness are retained. Linkages
can be found by identifying confirming cases, by
seeking underlying associations (LeCompte and
Preissle 1993: 246) and connections between data
subsets.
Weber (1990: 54) suggests that it is preferable
to retrieve text based on categories rather than
single words, as categories tend to retrieve more
than single words, drawing on synonyms and
conceptually close meanings. One can make
category counts as well as word counts. Indeed,
one can specify at what level the counting can
be conducted, for example, words, phrases, codes,
categories and themes.
The implication here is that the frequency of
words, codes, nodes and categories provides an
indication of their significance. This may or may
not be true, since subsequent mentions of a word
or category may be difficult in certain texts (e.g.
speeches). Frequency does not equal importance,
and not saying something (withholding comment)
may be as important as saying something. Content
analysis analyses only what is present rather than
what is missing or unsaid (Anderson and Arsenault
1998: 104). Further, as Weber (1990) says:
pronouns may replace nouns the further on one goes
through a passage; continuing raising of the issue may
 CONTENT ANALYSIS AND GROUNDED THEORY
cause redundancy as it may be counter-productive
repetition; constraints on text length may inhibit
reference to the theme; some topics may require
much more effort to raise than others.
(Weber 1990: 73)
The researcher can summarize the inferences
from the text, look for patterns, regularities and
relationships between segments of the text, and test
hypotheses. The summarizing of categories and data
is an explicit aim of statistical techniques, for these
permit trends, frequencies, priorities and
relationships to be calculated. At the stage of data
analysis there are several approaches and methods
that can be used. Krippendorp (2004:
48 53) suggests that these can include:
extrapolations: trends, patterns and differences
standards: evaluations and judgements
indices: e.g. of relationships, frequencies of
occurrence and co-occurrence, number of
favourable and unfavourable items
linguistic re-presentations.
Once frequencies have been calculated, statistical
analysis can proceed, using, for example:
factor analysis: to group the kinds of response
tabulation: of frequencies and percentages
cross-tabulation: presenting a matrix where
the words or codes are the column headings
and the nominal variables (e.g. the newspaper,
the year, the gender) are the row headings
correlation: to identify the strength and
direction of association between words,
between codes and between categories
graphical representation: for example to
report the incidence of particular words,
concepts, categories over time or over texts
regression: to determine the value of one
variable/word/code/category in relationship to
another a form of association that gives exact
values and the gradient or slope of the goodness
of fit line of relationship the regression line
multiple regression: to calculate the weighting
of independents on dependent variables
structural equation modelling and LISREL
analysis: to determine the multiple directions
of causality and the weightings of different
associations in a pathway analysis of causal
relations
dendrograms: tree diagrams to show the rela-
tionship and connection between categories
and codes, codes and nodes.
The calculation and presentation of statistics is
discussed in Chapters 24 26. At this stage the
argument here suggests that what starts as
qualitative data words can be converted into
numerical data for analysis.
If a less quantitative form of analysis is
required then this does not preclude a qualitative
version of the statistical procedures indicated
here. For example, one can establish linkages and
relationships between concepts and categories,
examining their strength and direction (how
strongly they are associated and whether the
association is positive or negative respectively).
Many computer packages will perform the
qualitative equivalent of statistical procedures.
It is also useful to try to pursue the
identification of core categories (see the later
discussion of grounded theory). A core category
is that which has the greatest explanatory
potential and to which the other categories and
subcategories seem to be repeatedly and closely
related (Strauss 1987: 11). Robson (1993: 401)
suggests that drawing conclusions from
qualitative data can be undertaken by counting,
patterning (noting recurrent themes or patterns),
clustering (of people, issues, events etc. which
have similar features), relating variables, building
causal networks, and relating findings to
theoretical frameworks.
While conducting qualitative data analysis using
numerical approaches or paradigms may be
criticized for being positivistic, one should note that
one of the founders of grounded theory (Glaser
1996) is on record as saying that not only did
grounded theory develop out of a desire to apply a
quantitative paradigm to qualitative data, but also
paradigmal purity was unacceptable in the real
world of qualitative data analysis, in which fitness
for purpose should be the guide. Further, one can
note that Miles and Huberman (1984) strongly
advocate the graphic display of data as

an economical means of reducing qualitative data.
Such graphics might serve both to indicate causal
relationships as well as simply summarizing data.
Step 10: Summarizing
By this stage the investigator will be in a position
to write a summary of the main features of the
situation that have been researched so far. The
summary will identify key factors, key issues, key
concepts and key areas for subsequent
investigation. It is a watershed stage during the
data collection, as it pinpoints major themes, issues
and problems that have arisen, so far, from the data
(responsively) and suggests avenues for further
investigation. The concepts used will be a
combination of those derived from the data
themselves and those inferred by the researcher
(Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 178).
At this point, the researcher will have gone
through the preliminary stages of theory
generation. Patton (1980) sets these out for
qualitative data:
finding a focus for the research and analysis
organizing, processing, ordering and checking
data
writing a qualitative description or analysis
inductively developing categories, typologies
and labels
analysing the categories to identify where
further clarification and cross-clarification are
needed
expressing and typifying these categories
through metaphors (see also Pitman and
Maxwell 1992: 747)
making inferences and speculations about
relationships, causes and effects.
Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 154 63) identify
several important factors that researchers need to
address at this stage, including forcing oneself to take
decisions that will focus and narrow the study and
decide what kind of study it will be; developing
analytical questions; using previous observational
data to inform subsequent data collection; writing
reflexive notes and memos about observations, ideas,
what is being learned; trying out ideas
A WORKED EXAMPLE OF CONTENT ANALYSIS483
23Chapter
with subjects; analysing relevant literature while
conducting the field research; generating concepts,
metaphors and analogies and visual devices to
clarify the research.
Step 11: Making speculative inferences
This is an important stage, for it moves the
research from description to inference. It requires
the researcher, on the basis of the evidence, to
posit some explanations for the situation, some
key elements and possibly even their causes. It
is the process of hypothesis generation or the
setting of working hypotheses that feeds into
theory generation.
The stage of theory generation is linked to
grounded theory, and we turn to this later in the
chapter. Here we provide an example of content
analysis that does not use statistical analysis but
which nevertheless demonstrates the systematic
approach to analysing data that is at the heart of
content analysis.
A worked example of content analysis
In this example the researcher has already
transcribed data concerning stress in the workplace
from, let us say, a limited number of accounts and
interviews with a few teachers, and these have
already been summarized into key points. It is
imagined that each account or interview has been
written up onto a separate file (e.g. computer file),
and now they are all being put together into a
single data set for analysis. What we have are
already-interpreted, rather than verbatim, data.
Stage 1: Extract the interpretive
comments that have been written on the
data
By the side of each, a code/category/descriptor
word has been inserted (in capital letters) i.e. the
summary data have already been collected together
into 33 summary sentences.
Stress is caused by deflated expectation, i.e. stress
is caused by annoyance with other people
 CONTENT ANALYSIS AND GROUNDED THEORY
not pulling their weight or not behaving as
desired, or teachers letting themselves down.
CAUSE
Stress is caused by having to make greater
demands on personal time to meet professional
concerns. So, no personal time/space is a cause
of stress. Stress is caused by having to
compromise ones plans/desires.
CAUSE
Stress comes from having to manage several
demands simultaneously, CAUSE, but the
very fact that they are simultaneous means
that they cant be managed at once, so stress
is built into the problem of coping its an
insoluble situation. NATURE
Stress from one source brings additional stress
which leads to loss of sleep a sign that things
are reaching a breaking point. OUTCOME
Stress is a function of the importance attached
to activities/issues by the person involved.
NATURE Stress is caused when ones own
integrity/values are not only challenged but
also called into question. CAUSE
Stress comes from frustration frustration
leads to stress leads to frustration leads to
stress etc. a vicious circle. NATURE
When the best laid plans go wrong this can be
stressful. CAUSE
The vicious circle of stress induces sleep
irregularity which, in turn, induces stress.
NATURE
Reducing stress often works on symptoms rather
than causes may be the only thing possible,
CAUSE, given that the stressors will not go
away, but it allows the stress to fester.
CAUSE
The effects of stress are physical which, in turn,
causes more stress another vicious circle.
OUTCOMES
Stress comes from lowering enthusiasm/
commitment/aspiration/expectation. CAUSE
Pressure of work lowers aspiration which
lowers stress. CAUSE
Stress reduction is achieved through compan-
ionship. HANDLING
Stress is caused by things out of ones control.
CAUSE
Stress comes through handling troublesome
students. CAUSE
Stress occurs because of a failure of
management/leadership. CAUSE
Stress comes through absence of fulfilment.
CAUSE
Stress rarely happens on its own, it is usually
in combination like a rolling snowball, it is
cumulative. NATURE
Stress is caused by worsening professional
conditions that are out of the control of the
participant. CAUSE Stress comes through
loss of control and autonomy. CAUSE
Stress through worsening professional condi-
tions is exponential in its effects. NATURE
Stress is caused when professional standards
are felt to be compromised. CAUSE
Stress occurs because matters are not resolved.
CAUSE
Stress comes through professional compromise
which is out of an individuals control. CAUSE
The rate of stress is a function of its size a
big bomb causes instant damage. NATURE
Stress is caused by having no escape valve; it
is bottled up and causes more stress, like a
kettle with no escape valve, it will stress the
metal and then blow up. CAUSE
Stress comes through overload and frustra-
tion a loss of control. Stress occurs when
people cannot control the circumstances with
which they have to work. CAUSE
Stress occurs through overload. CAUSE
Stress comes from seeing ones former work
being undone by others incompetence.
CAUSE
Stress occurs because nothing has been possible
to reduce the level of stress. So, if the boil of
stress is not lanced, it grows and grows. CAUSE
NATURE
Stress can be handled through relaxation and
exercise. HANDLING
Trying to relieve stress through self-damaging
behaviour includes taking alcohol and smok-
ing. HANDLING NATURE
Stress is a function of the importance attached
to activities by the participants involved.
NATURE

The closer the relationship to people who cause
stress, the greater the stress. NATURE
The data have been coded very coarsely, in terms
of three or four main categories. It may have been
possible to have coded the data far more
specifically, e.g. each specific cause has its code,
indeed one school of thought would argue that it is
important to generate the specific codes first. One
can code for words (and, thereafter, the frequency
of words) or meanings it is sometimes dangerous
to go for words rather than meanings, as people
say the same things in different ways.
Stage 2: Sort data into key headings/areas
The codes that have been used fall into four main
areas:
causes of stress
nature of stress
outcomes of stress
handling stress.
Stage 3: List the topics within each key
area/heading and put frequencies in
which items are mentioned
For each main area the relevant data are presented
together, and a tally mark (/) is placed against the
number of times that the issue has been mentioned
by the teachers.
Causes of stress
deflated expectation/aspiration /
annoyance /
others not pulling weight /
others letting themselves down /
professional demands, e.g. troublesome
students /
demands on personal time from professional
tasks /
difficulties of the job /
loss of personal time and space /
compromising oneself or ones professional
standards and integrity ///
plans go wrong /
A WORKED EXAMPLE OF CONTENT ANALYSIS485
Chapter
stress itself causes more stress /
inability to reduce causes of stress /
lowering enthusiasm/commitment/aspiration /
pressure of work /
things out of ones control //
23
failure of management or leadership /
absence of fulfilment /
worsening professional conditions /
loss of control and autonomy //
inability to resolve situation /
having no escape valve /
overload at work /
seeing ones work undone by others /
Nature of stress
Stress is a function of the importance attached
to activities issues by the participants. /
Stress is inbuilt when too many simultaneous
demands are made, i.e. it is insoluble. /
It is cumulative (like a snowball) until it
reaches a breaking point. /
Stress is a vicious circle. //
The effects of stress are exponential. /
The rate of stress is a function of its size. /
If stress has no escape valve then that causes
more stress. //
Handling stress can lead to self-damaging
behaviour (smoking or alcohol). /
Stress is a function of the importance attached
to activities-issues by the participants. /
The closer the relationship to people who cause
stress, the greater the stress. /
Outcomes of stress
loss of sleep or physical reaction //
effects of stress themselves causing more stress /
self-damaging behaviour /
Handling stress
physical action or exercise /
companionship /
alcohol and smoking /
 CONTENT ANALYSIS AND GROUNDED THEORY
Stage 4: Go through the list generated
in stage 3 and put the issues into
groups (avoiding category overlap)
Here the grouped data are reanalysed and re-
presented according to possible groupings of
issues under the four main heading (causes,
nature, outcomes and handling of stress).
Causes of stress
Personal factors
deflated expectation or aspiration /
annoyance /
demands on personal time from professional
tasks /
loss of personal time and space /
stress itself causes more stress /
inability to reduce causes of stress /
lowering enthusiasm, commitment or aspira-
tion /
things out of ones control //
absence of fulfilment /
loss of control and autonomy //
inability to resolve situation /
having no escape valve /
Interpersonal factors
annoyance /
others not pulling weight /
others letting themselves down /
compromising oneself or ones professional
standards and integrity ///
seeing ones work undone by others /
Management
pressure of work /
things out of ones control //
failure of management or leadership /
worsening professional conditions /
seeing ones work undone by others /
Professional matters
others not pulling weight /
professional demands, e.g. troublesome
students /
demands on personal time from professional
tasks /
difficulties of the job /
compromising oneself or ones professional
standards and integrity ///
plans go wrong /
pressure of work /
worsening professional conditions /
loss of control and autonomy //
overload at work /
Nature of stress
Objective
It is a function of the importance attached to
activities-issues by the participants. /
Stress is inbuilt when too many simultaneous
demands are made, i.e. it is insoluble. /
It is cumulative (like a snowball) until it
reaches a breaking point. /
Stress is a vicious circle. //
The effects of stress are exponential. /
The rate of stress is a function of its size. /
If stress has no escape valve then that causes
more stress. //
Handling stress can lead to self-damaging
behaviour (smoking or alcohol). /
Subjective
Stress is a function of the importance attached
to activities-issues by the participants. /
The closer the relationship to people who
cause stress, the greater the stress. /
Outcomes of stress
Physiological
loss of sleep /
Physical
physical reactions //
increased smoking /
increased alcohol /
Psychological
annoyance /

Handling stress
Physical
physical action or exercise /
Social
social solidarity, particularly with close people
///
companionship /
Stage 5: Comment on the groups or results
in stage 4 and review their messages
Once the previous stage has been completed, the
researcher is then in a position to draw attention to
general and specific points, for example:
There is a huge number of causes of stress
(give numbers).
There are very few outlets for stress, so it is
inevitable, perhaps, that stress will accumulate.
Causes of stress are more rooted in personal
factors than any others management, profes-
sional etc. (give frequencies here).
The demands of the job tend to cause less stress
that other factors (e.g. management), i.e. people
go into the job knowing what to expect, but the
problem lies elsewhere, with management
(give frequencies).
Loss of control is a significant factor (give
frequencies).
Challenges to people and personal integrity/ self-
esteem are very stressful (give frequencies).
The nature of stress is complex, with several
interacting components (give frequencies).
Stress is omnipresent.
Not dealing with stress compounds the
problem; dealing with stress compounds the
problem.
The subjective aspects of the nature of stress
are as important as its objective nature (give
frequencies).
The outcomes of stress tend to be personal
rather than outside the person (e.g. systemic or
system-disturbing) (give frequencies).
The outcomes of stress are almost exclusively
negative rather than positive (give frequen-
cies).
COMPUTER USAGE IN CONTENT ANALYSIS 487
The outcomes of stress tend to be felt non-
Chapter 23
cognitively, e.g. emotionally and psy-
chologically, rather than cognitively (give
frequencies).
There are few ways of handling stress
(frequencies), i.e. opportunities for stress
reduction are limited.
The stages of this analysed example embody
several of the issues raised in the preceding
discussion of content analysis, although the
example here does not undertake word counts or
statistical analysis, and, being fair to content
analysis, this could some would argue even
should be a further kind of analysis. What has
happened in this analysis raises several important
issues:
The researcher has looked within and across
categories and groupings for patterns, themes,
generalizations, as well as exceptions, unusual
observations etc.
The researcher has had to decide whether
frequencies are important, or whether an issue
is important even if it is mentioned only once
or a few times.
The researcher has looked for, and reported,
disconfirming as well as confirming evidence
for statements.
The final stage of the analysis is that of theory
generation, to account for what is being
explained about stress. It might also be
important, in further analysis, to try to find
causal relationships here: what causes what and
the directions of causality; it may also be
useful to construct diagrams (with arrows) to
show the directions, strength and
positive/negative nature of stress.
Computer usage in content analysis
LeCompte and Preissle (1993) provide a summary
of ways in which information technology can be
utilized in supporting qualitative research (see also
Tesch 1990). As can be seen from the list below,
its uses are diverse. Data have to be processed, and
as word data are laborious to process, and as
several powerful packages for data
 CONTENT ANALYSIS AND GROUNDED THEORY
analysis and processing exist, researchers will
find it useful to make full use of computing
facilities. These can be used to do the following
(LeCompte and Preissle 1993: 280 1):
store and check (e.g. proofread) data
collate and segment data and to make
numerous copies of data
enable memoing to take place, together with
details of the circumstances in which the
memos were written
conduct a search for words or phrases in the
data and to retrieve text
attach identification labels to units of text
(e.g. questionnaire responses), so that
subsequent sorting can be undertaken
annotate and append text
partition data into units that have been
determined either by the researcher or in
response to the natural language itself
enable preliminary coding of data to be
undertaken
sort, resort, collate, classify and reclassify pieces
of data to facilitate constant comparison and to
refine schemas of classification
code memos and bring them into the same
schema of classification
assemble, reassemble and recall data into
categories
undertake frequency counts (e.g. of words,
phrases, codes)
cross-check data to see if they can be coded
into more than one category, enabling
linkages between categories to be discovered
establish the incidence of data that are
contained in more than one category
retrieve coded and noded data segments from
subsets (e.g. by sex) in order to compare and
contrast data
search for pieces of data that appear in a
certain (e.g. chronological) sequence
establish linkages between coding categories
display relationships of categories (e.g. hier-
archical, temporal, relational, subsumptive,
superordinate)
quote data in the final report.
Kelle (1995) suggests that computers are
particularly effective at coping with the often-
encountered problem of data overload and retrieval
in qualitative research. Computers, it is argued,
enable the researcher to use codes, memos,
hypertext systems, selective retrieval, co-occurring
codes, and to perform quantitative counts of qual-
itative data types (see also Seidel and Kelle 1995).
In turn, this enables linkages of elements to be
undertaken, the building of networks and, ul-
timately, theory generation to be undertaken (Seidel
and Kelle 1995). Indeed Lonkila (1995) indicates
how computers can assist in the genera-tion of
grounded theory through coding, constant
comparison, linkages, memoing, annotations and
appending, use of diagrams, verification and, ulti-
mately, theory building. In this process Kelle and
Laurie (1995: 27) suggest that computer-aided
methods can enhance validity (by the manage-ment
of samples) and reliability (by retrieving all the data
on a given topic, thereby ensuring trustworthiness of
the data).
A major feature of computer use is in the coding
and compilation of data (for example, Kelle 1995:
62 104). Lonkila (1995) identifies several kinds of
codes. Open coding generates categories and
defines their properties and dimensions. Axial
coding works within one category, making
connections between subgroups of that category and
between one category and another. This might be in
terms of the phenomena that are being studied, the
causal conditions that lead to the phenomena, the
context of the phenomena and their intervening
conditions, and the actions and interactions of, and
consequences for, the actors in situations. Selective
coding identifies the core categories of text data,
integrating them to form a theory. Seidel and Kelle
(1995) suggest that codes can denote a text, passage
or fact, and can be used to construct data networks.
There are several computer packages for
qualitative data (see Kelle 1995), for example:
AQUAD; ATLAS/ti; HyperQuad2; Hyper-
RESEARCH; Hypersoft; Kwaliton; Martin;
MAXqda; WINMAX; QSR.NUD.IST; Nvivo;
QUALPRO; Textbase Alpha, ETHNOGRAPH,
ATLAS.ti, Code-A-Text, Decision Explorer,

Diction. Some of these are reviewed by Prein et al.
(1995: 190 209). These do not actually perform
the analysis (in contrast to packages for quantita-
tive data analysis) but facilitate and assist it. As
Kelle (2004: 277) remarks, they do not analyse
text so much as organize and structure text for
subsequent analysis.
These programs have the attraction of coping
with large quantities of text-based material rapidly
and without any risk of human error in
computation and retrieval, and releasing
researchers from some mechanical tasks. With
respect to words, phrases, codes, nodes and
categories they can:
search for and return text, codes, nodes and
categories
filter text
return counts
present the grouped data according to the
selection criterion desired, both within and
across texts
perform the qualitative equivalent of statistical
analyses, such as:
Boolean searches (intersections of textwhich
have been coded by more than one code or
node, using and, not and or; looking be examined mechanically. Further, Kelle (2004:
for overlaps and co-occurrences)
proximity searches (looking at clustering
ofdata and related contextual data either
side of a node or code)
restrictions, trees, cross-tabs (including
andexcluding documents for searching,
looking for codes subsumed by a particular
node, and looking for nodes which subsume
others)
construct dendrograms (tree structures) of
related nodes and codes
present data in sequences and locate the text in
surrounding material in order to provide the
necessary context
select text on combined criteria (e.g. joint
occurrences, collocations)
enable analyses of similarities, differences and
relationships between texts and passages of text
annotate text and enable memos to be written
about text.
COMPUTER USAGE IN CONTENT ANALYSIS489
Chapter
Additionally, dictionaries and concordances of
terms can be employed to facilitate coding,
searching, retrieval and presentation.
Since the rules for coding and categories are
public and rule-governed, computer analysis can
23
be particularly useful for searching, retrieving and
grouping text, both in terms of specific words and in
terms of words with similar meanings. Single words
and word counts can overlook the importance
of context. Hence computer software packages
have been developed that look at Key-Words-In-
Context. Most software packages have advanced
functions for memoing, i.e. writing commentaries
to accompany text that are not part of the orig-
inal text but which may or may not be marked
as incorporated material into the textual analy-
sis. Additionally many software packages include
an annotation function, which lets the researcher
annotate and append text, and the annotation is
kept in the text but marked as an annotation.
Computers do not do away with the human
touch, as humans are still needed to decide and
generate the codes and categories, to verify and
interpret the data. Similarly there are strict limits
to algorithmic interpretations of texts (Kelle 2004:
277), as texts contain more than that which can
suggests that there may be problems where
assumptions behind the software may not accord
with those of the researchers or correspond to the
researchers purposes, and that the software does
not enable the range and richness of analytic
techniques that are associated with qualitative
research. Kelle (2004) argues that software may be
more closely aligned to the technique of grounded
theory than to other techniques (e.g. hermeneutics,
discourse analysis) (Coffey et al. 1996), that it
may drive the analysis rather than vice versa
(Fielding and Lee 1998), and that it has a
preoccupation with coding categories (Seidel and
Kelle 1995). One could also argue that software
does not give the same added value that one finds
in quantitative data analysis, in that the textual
input is a highly laborious process and that it does
not perform the analysis but only supports the
researcher doing the analysis by organizing data
and recording codes and nodes etc.
 CONTENT ANALYSIS AND GROUNDED THEORY
Reliability in content analysis
There are several issues to be addressed in
considering the reliability of texts and their
content analysis, indeed, in analysing qualitative
data using a variety of means, for example:
Witting and unwitting evidence (Robson 1993:
273): witting evidence is that which was
intended to be imparted; unwitting evidence is
that which can be inferred from the text, and
which may not be intended by the imparter.
The text may not have been written with the
researcher in mind and may have been written
for a very different purpose from that of the
research (a common matter in documentary
research); hence the researcher will need to
know or be able to infer the intentions of the
text.
The documents may be limited, selective,
partial, biased, non-neutral and incomplete
because they were intended for a different
purpose other than that of research (an issue
of validity as well as of reliability).
It may be difficult to infer the direction of
causality in the documents they may have
been the cause or the consequence of a
particular situation.
Classification of text may be inconsistent (a
problem sometimes mitigated by computer
analysis), because of human error, coder
variability (within and between coders), and
ambiguity in the coding rules (Weber 1990:
17).
Texts may not be corroborated or able to be
corroborated.
Words are inherently ambiguous and polyva-lent
(the problem of homographs): for example, what
does the word school mean: a building; a
group of people; a particular movement of artists
(e.g. the impressionist school); a depart-ment (a
medical school); a noun; a verb (to drill, to
induct, to educate, to train, to control, to attend
an institution); a period of instruc-tional time
(they stayed after school to play sports); a
modifier (e.g. a school day); a sphere of activity
(e.g. the school of hard knocks); a collection of
people adhering to a particular set
of principles (e.g. the utilitarian school); a style
of life (e.g. a gentleman from the old school); a
group assembled for a particular purpose (e.g. a
gambling school), and so on. This is a par-
ticular problem for computer programs which
may analyse words devoid of their meaning.
Coding and categorizing may lose the
nuanced richness of specific words and their
connotations.
Category definitions and themes may be
ambiguous, as they are inferential.
Some words may be included in the same
overall category but they may have more or less
significance in that category (and a system of
weighting the words may be unreliable).
Words that are grouped together into a similar
category may have different connotations and
their usage may be more nuanced than the
categories recognize.
Categories may reflect the researchers
agenda and imposition of meaning more than
the text may sustain or the producers of the
text (e.g. interviewees) may have intended.
Aggregation may compromise reliability.
Whereas sentences, phrases and words and
whole documents may have the highest
reliability in analysis, paragraphs and larger
but incomplete portions of text have lower
reliability (Weber 1990: 39).
A document may deliberately exclude some-
thing for mention, overstate an issue or under-
state an issue (Weber 1990: 73).
At a wider level, the limits of content analysis are
suggested by Ezzy (2002: 84), who argues that, due
to the pre-ordinate nature of coding and
categorizing, content analysis is useful for testing or
confirming a pre-existing theory rather than for
building a new one, though this perhaps understates
the ways in which content analysis can be used to
generate new theory, not least through a grounded
theory approach (discussed later). In many cases
content analysts know in advance what they are
looking for in text, and perhaps what the categories
for analysis will be. Ezzy (2002: 85) suggests that
this restricts the extent to which the analytical
categories can be responsive to the
data, thereby confining the data analysis to the agenda of the researcher rather than the other. In this way it enables
pre-existing theory to be tested. Indeed Mayring (2004: 269) argues that if the research question is very open or if the
study is exploratory, then more open procedures than content analysis, e.g. grounded theory, may be preferable.
However, inductive approaches may be ruled out of the early stages of a content analysis, but this does not keep
them out of the later stages, as themes and interpretations may emerge inductively from the data and the researcher,
rather than only or necessarily from the categories or pre-existing theories themselves. Hence to suggest that content
analysis denies induction or is confined to the testing of pre-existing theory (Ezzy 2002: 85) is uncharitable; it is to
misrepresent the flexibility of content analysis. Indeed Flick (1998) suggests that pre-existing categories may need to
be modified if they do not fit the data.