Quality and Quantity

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 299–321 | Cite as

Text Analysis Software: Commonalities, Differences and Limitations: The Results of a Review

  • Melina Alexa
  • Cornelia Zuell
Article

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the tendencies infunctionality and technology of software for textanalysis and reflect on those areas where moredevelopment is needed. The basis for this discussionforms a comprehensive review of fifteen currentlyavailable software for text analysis (Alexa and Zuell,1999). In the review the following software packageswere individually presented in a detailed andextensive manner: AQUAD, ATLAS.ti, CoAn, Code-A-Text,DICTION, DIMAP-MCCA, HyperRESEARCH, KEDS,NUD*IST, QED, TATOE, TEXTPACK, TextSmart,WinMAXpro, and WordStat. Here we only delineate ourmethodology and criteria for selecting which programsto review and concentrate on discussing the types ofsupport the selected programs offer, the commonalitiesand differences of their functionality, point to someof their shortcomings and put forward suggestions forfuture development.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexa, M. & Rostek, L. (1996). Computer-assisted, corpus-based analysis text with TATOE'. ALLC-ACH96, Book of Abstracts. Bergen, Norway, University of Bergen, pp. 11–17.Google Scholar
  2. Alexa, M. & Zuell, C. (1999). Software for Computer-Assisted Text Analysis: A Review. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial. Mannheim, Germany: ZUMA.Google Scholar
  3. Alexa, M. & Schmidt, I. (1999). Modell einer mehrschichtigen Textannotation für die computerunterstützte Textanalyse. In W. Möhr & I. Schmidt (eds), SGML/XML - Anwendungen und Perspektiven. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Depuis, A. & Tornabene, E. (1993). HyperRESEARCHTM from ResearchWare: A Content Analysis Tool for the Qualitative Researcher. Randolph, MA: ResearchWare, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Evans, W. (1996). Computer-supported content analysis. Social Science Computer Review 114(3): 269–279.Google Scholar
  6. Fielding, N. G. & Lee, R. M. (1991). Using Computers in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Hart, R. P. (1985). Systemic analysis of political discourse: The development of DICTION. In: K. Sanders (eds), Political Communication Yearbook: 1984. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 97–134.Google Scholar
  8. Huber, G. L. (1997). Analysis of Qualitative Data with AQUADFive for Windows. Schwangau, Germany: Ingeborg Huber.Google Scholar
  9. Klein, H. (1997a). Classification of Text Analysis Software. In: R. Klar & O. Oppitz (eds), Classification and Knowledge Organization. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft fuer Klassifikation e.V. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 355–362.Google Scholar
  10. Klein, H. (1997b). INTEXT-Handbuch, Version 4.0. Jena, Germany: Mimeo.Google Scholar
  11. Kuckartz, U. (1998). WinMAX: Scientific Text Analysis for the Social Sciences. User's guide. Berlin: BSS.Google Scholar
  12. Lezius, W., Rapp, R. & Wettler, M. (1998). A freely available morphological analyzer, disambiguator, and context sensitive lemmatizer for German. In: Proceedings of the COLING-ACL 1998, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. McTavish, D. G. & Pirro E. B. (1990). Contextual content analysis. Quality and Quantity 24: 245–265.Google Scholar
  14. McTavish, D., Litkowski K. C. & Schrader S. (1997). A computer content analysis approach to measuring social distance in residential organizations for older people. Social Science Computer Review 15(2): 170–180.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, Chr., Cross, D., Miller, K. & Tengi, R. (1993). Five papers on WordNetTM. CSL Report 43. Cognitive Science Laboratory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  16. Mohler, P. Ph. & Zuell, C. (1998). TEXTPACK User's Guide. Mannheim: ZUMA.Google Scholar
  17. Muhr, T. (1997). ATLAS.ti the Knowledge Workbench: Visual Qualitative Data AnalysisManagement Model Building. Short User's Manual (Version 4.1 for Windows 95 and Windows NT). Berlin: Scientific Software Development.Google Scholar
  18. Muhr, Th. (1996). Textinterpretation und Theorienentwicklung mit Atlas/ti. In: W. Bos & C. Tarnai (eds), Computerunterstuetzte Inhaltsanalyse in den empirischen Sozialwissenschaften. Muenster: Waxmann, pp. 245–259.Google Scholar
  19. Richards, L. (1998). NUD*IST Introductory Handbook. Victoria, Australia: QSR.Google Scholar
  20. Roberts, C. W., ed. (1997). Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Rostek, L. & Alexa, M. (1998). Marking up in TATOE and exporting to SGML. Computers and the Humanities 31: 311–326.Google Scholar
  22. Schrodt, Ph. A. (1998). KEDS: Kansas Event Data System. Version 0.9B7. Kansas University: http://www.ukans.edu/~keds/.Google Scholar
  23. Stone, Ph. J. (1997). Thematic text analysis: New agendas for analysing text content. In: C. W. Roberts (ed.), Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Publishers, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
  24. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. New York: Falmer.Google Scholar
  25. Tesch, R. (1991). Software for qualitative researchers: Analysis needs and program capabilities. In: N. G. Fielding and R. M. Lee (eds), Using Computers in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. TextSmartTM 1.0 (1997). User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Weitzman, E. A. & Miles, M. B. (1995). A Software Sourcebook: Computer Programs for Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melina Alexa
    • 1
  • Cornelia Zuell
    • 2
  1. 1.Methoden und Analysen, Center for Survey Research and MethodologyZUMA, Zentrum für UmfragenMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Methoden und Analysen, Center for Survey Research and MethodologyZUMA, Zentrum für UmfragenMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations