Advertisement

Inhaltsanalyse

Chapter
  • 3.7k Downloads
Part of the Grundwissen Politik book series (GPOL)

Zusammenfassung

Die Inhaltsanalyse zählt seit jeher zu den gebräuchlichsten Verfahren in den sozialwissenschaftlichen Fächern. Durch die immer differenzierteren Möglichkeiten der Datenanalyse sowie die rasanten Veränderungen im Bereich der computergestützten Textanalyse, erfuhr diese Form der Datenanalyse zudem eine außerordentliche Verbreitung. Wie jede andere sozialwissenschaftliche Arbeitstechnik sollte jedoch auch die Inhaltsanalyse für andere Forscherinnen nachvollziehbar und replizierbar sein. Die gängigen Standards wissenschaftlicher Methoden wie Objektivität, Intersubjektivität, Reliabilität, Validität, Generalisierbarkeit und Replizierbarkeit gelten somit auch im Rahmen der Inhaltsanalyse. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird der vorliegenden Beitrag einen Überblick über alle wesentlichen Schritte und Merkmale einer (quantitativen) Inhaltsanalyse geben. Im Wesentlichen werden die Leserinnen und Leser Einblicke in zwei grundlegende Teilbereiche erlangen: die Methode der Datenerhebung im Rahmen inhaltsanalytischer Verfahren sowie der Datenanalyse anhand von inhaltsanalytisch aufbereiteten Daten. Beides wird anschaulich anhand von Daten des Euromanifesto-Projekts verdeutlicht. Außerdem werden einige praktische Hinweise und häufige Fehler in Hinblick auf Datenaufbereitung und Datennutzung gegeben.

Schlüsselwörter

Inhaltsanalyse Quanitativ Codieren Manifestodaten Euromanifesto Salienz Europawahlen Europathemen Parteien 

Literatur

  1. Adam, Silke, und Michaela Maier. 2011. National parties as politicizers of EU integration? Party campaign communication in the run-up to the 2009 European Parliament election. European Union Politics 12(2): 431–453.Google Scholar
  2. Adam, Silke, und Michaela Maier. 2016. Campaigning on or downplaying European Union integration? Explaining the salience parties attach to EU matters in European Parliamentary election campaigns. In (Un)intended consequences of European Parliamentary elections, Hrsg. Wouter van der Brug und Claes H. de Vreese, 148–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Adam, Silke, Eva-Maria Antl-Wittenberg, Beatrice Eugster, Melanie Leidecker-Sandmann, Michaela Maier, und Franziska Schmidt. 2016. Strategies of pro-European parties in the face of a Eurosceptic challenge. European Union Politics 18(2): 260–282.Google Scholar
  4. Bakker, Ryan, Catherine E. de Vries, Erica Edwards, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Gary Marks, Jonathan Polk, Jan Rovny, Marco Steenbergen, und Milada Vachudova. 2012. Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics 21(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  5. Bartolini, Stefano. 2005. Restructuring Europe: Centre formation, system building, and political structuring between the nation state and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, Nathaniel, und Jonathan N. Katz. 1995. What to do (ant not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review 89(3): 634–647.Google Scholar
  7. Benoit, Kenneth, Michael Laver, Will Lowe, und Slava Mikhaylov. 2012. How to scale coded text units without bias: A response to Gemenis. Electoral Studies 31(3): 605–608.Google Scholar
  8. Berelson, Bernard. 1971. Content analysis in communication research. New York: Hafner Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  9. Biesenbender, Jan. 2011. The dynamics of treaty change – measuring the distribution of power in the European Union. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP) 15(5): 1–24.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, Daniela, und Sebastian A. Popa. 2018. This time it was different? The salience of the Spitzenkandidaten system among European parties. West European Politics 41(5): 1125–1145.Google Scholar
  11. Braun, Daniela, Slava Mikhaylov, und Hermann Schmitt. 2010. European Parliament Election Study 2009, Manifesto Study. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5057 Data file Version 1.0.0.  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.10204.
  12. Braun, Daniela, Hermann Schmitt, Andreas M. Wüst, Sebastian Adrian Popa, Slava Mikhaylov, und Felix Dwinger. 2015. European Parliament Election Study 1979–2009, Manifesto Study. Köln: GESIS Datenarchiv.Google Scholar
  13. Braun, Daniela, Swen Hutter, und Alena Kerscher. 2016. What type of Europe? The salience of polity and policy issues in European Parliament elections. European Union Politics 17(4): 570–592.Google Scholar
  14. Braun, Daniela, Alena Kerscher, und Swen Hutter. 2018. Anzeichen einer „differenzierten“ Politisierung? Die Salienz europäischer Policies im Europawahlkampf. In Parteien und die Politisierung der Europäischen Union, Hrsg. Lisa H. Anders, Henrik Scheller und Thomas Tuntschew, 163–191. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  15. Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, und Eric Tannenbaum, Hrsg. 2001. Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Däubler, Thomas. 2012. Wie entstehen Wahlprogramme? Eine Untersuchung zur Landtagswahl in Baden-Württemberg 2006. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 22(3): 333–365.Google Scholar
  17. Dinas, Elias, und Kostas Gemenis. 2010. Measuring parties’ ideological positions with manifesto data: A critical evaluation of the competing methods. Party Politics 16(4): 427–450.Google Scholar
  18. Dolezal, Martin. 2012. Restructuring the European political space: the supply side of European electoral politics. In Political conflict in the age of globalization, Hrsg. Hanspeter Kriesi, Edgar Grande, Martin Dolezal, Marc Helbling, Dominic Hoeglinger, Swen Hutter und Bruno Wüest, 127–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dolezal, Martin, Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, Wolfgang C. Müller, und Anna Katharina Winkler. 2012. The life cycle of party manifestos: The Austrian case. West European Politics 35(4): 869–895.Google Scholar
  20. Dolezal, Martin, Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, Wolfgang C. Müller, und Anna Katharina Winkler. 2016. Analyzing manifestos in their electoral context a new approach applied to Austria, 2002–2008. Political Science Research and Methods 4(3): 641–650.Google Scholar
  21. Dolezal, Martin, Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, Wolfgang C. Müller, Katrin Praprotnik, und Anna Katharina Winkler. 2018. Beyond salience and position taking: How political parties communicate through their manifestos. Party Politics 24(3): 240–252.Google Scholar
  22. Esteban, Joan, und Debraj Ray. 1994. On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica 62(4): 819–851.Google Scholar
  23. Esteban, Joan, und Gerald Schneider. 2008. Polarization and conflict: Theoretical and empirical issues. Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Peace Research 45(2): 131–141.Google Scholar
  24. Früh, Werner. 2017. Inhaltsanalyse. Stuttgart: UTB.Google Scholar
  25. Grande, Edgar, und Swen Hutter. 2016. Beyond authority transfer: explaining the politicisation of Europe. West European Politics 39(1): 23–43.Google Scholar
  26. Helbling, Marc, und Tresch Anke. 2011. Measuring party positions and issue salience from media coverage: Discussing and cross-validating new indicators. Electoral Studies 30: 174–183.Google Scholar
  27. Hoeglinger, Dominic. 2016. The politicisation of European integration in domestic election campaigns. West European Politics 39(1): 44–63.Google Scholar
  28. Hutter, Swen. 2014. Protest event analysis and its offspring. In Methodological practices in social movement research, Hrsg. Donatella della Porta, 335–367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hutter, Swen. im Erscheinen. Quantitative Inhaltsanalyse. In Handbuch Methoden der Politikwissenschaft, Hrsg. Claudius Wagemann, Achim Goerres und Markus Siewert. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  30. Hutter, Swen, Edgar Grande, und Hanspeter Kriesi, Hrsg. 2016. Politicising Europe: Integration and mass politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Indridason, Indridi H. 2011. Coalition formation and polarisation. European Journal of Political Research 50(5): 689–718.Google Scholar
  32. Jahn, Detlef. 2013. Einführung in die Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  33. Kleinnijenhuis, Jan, und Paul Pennings. 2001. Measurement of party positions on the basis of party programmes, media coverage and voter perceptions. In Estimating the policy positions of political actors, Hrsg. Michael Laver, 162–182. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Kleinnijenhuis, Jan, Jan A. de Ridder, und Ewald M. Rietberg. 1997. Reasoning in economic discourse. An application of the network approach to the Dutch Press. Text Analysis 25:191–207.Google Scholar
  35. Klemmensen, Robert, Sara Binzer Hobolt, und Martin Ejnar Hansen. 2007. Estimating policy positions using political texts: An evaluation of the Wordscores approach. Electoral Studies 27:746–755.Google Scholar
  36. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Andrea Volkens, Judith L. Bara, Ian Budge, und Michael McDonald. 2006. Mapping policy preferences II: estimate for parties, electors, and governemnts in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Koopmans, Ruud, und Paul Statham. 1999. Political claims analysis: Integrating protest event and political discourse approaches. Mobilization 4(2): 203–221.Google Scholar
  38. Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2007. The role of European integration in national election campaigns. European Union Politics 8(1): 83–108.Google Scholar
  39. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Edgar Grande, Romain Lachat, Martin Dolezal, Simon Bornschier, und Timotheos Frey. 2008. West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Edgar Grande, Martin Dolezal, Marc Helbling, Dominic Höglinger, Swen Hutter, und Bruno Wüest. 2012. Political conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Krippendorff, Klaus. 2013. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  43. Lo, James, Sven-Oliver Proksch, und Jonathan B. Slapin. 2016. Ideological clarity in multiparty competition: A new measure and test using election manifestos. British Journal of Political Science Online 46(3): 591–610.Google Scholar
  44. Lowe, Will, Kenneth Benoit, Slava Mikhaylov, und Michael Laver. 2011. Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36:123–155.Google Scholar
  45. Mair, Peter. 2000. The limited impact of Europe on national party systems. West European Politics 23(4): 27–51.Google Scholar
  46. Mair, Peter. 2007. Political parties and party systems. In Europeanization. New research agendas, Hrsg. Paolo Graziano und Maarten Vink, 154–166. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  47. Mayring, Philipp. 2000. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien.Google Scholar
  48. Melina, Alexa, und Cornelia Züll. 1999. A review of software for text analysis. Mannheim: Zuma.Google Scholar
  49. Merten, Klaus. 1995. Inhaltsanalyse: Einführung in die Theorie, Methode und Praxis. Opladen: Westdeutscher.Google Scholar
  50. Meyer, Thomas, und Marcelo Jenny. 2013. Measuring error for adjacent policy position estimates: Dealing with uncertainty using CMP data. Electoral Studies 32:174–185.Google Scholar
  51. Meyer, Thomas M., und Markus Wagner. 2016. Issue engagement in election campaigns. The impact of electoral incentives and organizational constraints. Political Science Research and Methods 4:555–571.Google Scholar
  52. Meyer, Thomas M., Martin Haselmayer, und Markus Wagner. 2020. Who gets into the papers? Party campaign messages and the media. British Journal of Political Science 50(1): 281–302.Google Scholar
  53. Netjes, Catherine E., und Harmen A. Binnema. 2007. The salience of the European integration issue: Three data sources compared. Electoral Studies 26:39–49.Google Scholar
  54. Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2017. The content analysis guidebook. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  55. Pennings, Paul. 2006. An empirical analysis of the Europeanization of national party manifestos, 1960–2003. European Union Politics 7(2): 257–270.Google Scholar
  56. Plümper, Thomas, Vera E. Troeger, und Philip Manow. 2005. Panel data analysis in comparative politics: Linking method to theory. European Journal of Political Research 44(2): 327–354.Google Scholar
  57. Puchinger, Carmen. 2016. Die Anwendung von Text Mining in den Sozialwissenschaften. Ein Überblick zum aktuellen Stand der Methode. In Text Mining in den Sozialwissenschaften, Hrsg. Matthias Lemke und Gregor Wiedemann. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  58. Rauh, Christian. 2015. Communicating supranational governance? The salience of EU affairs in the German Bundestag, 1991–2013. European Union Politics 16(1): 116–138.Google Scholar
  59. Ray, Leonard. 1999. Measuring party orientations towards European integration: Results from an expert survey. European Journal of Political Research 36(2): 283–306.Google Scholar
  60. Reif, Karlheinz, und Hermann Schmitt. 1980. Nine second-order national elections – A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research 8(1): 3–44.Google Scholar
  61. Rössler, Patrick. 2005. Inhaltsanalyse. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  62. Schmitt, Hermann. 2005. The European Parliament elections of June 2004: Still second-order? West European Politics 28(3): 650–679.Google Scholar
  63. Schmitt, Hermann. 2007. The nature of european issues: Conceptual clarifications and some empirical evidence. In A European public sphere: How much of it do we have and how much do we need? CONNEX report series no. 2, Hrsg. Claes H. De Vreese und Hermann Schmitt, 11–22. Mannheim: Connex.Google Scholar
  64. Schmitt, Hermann, Daniela Braun, Sebastian A. Popa, Slava Mikhaylov, und Felix Dwinger. 2018. European Parliament Election Study 1979–2014, Euromanifesto Study. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5102 Data file Version 2.0.0.  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12830.
  65. Spoon, Jae-Jae. 2012. How salient is Europe? An analysis of European election manifestos, 1979–2004. European Union Politics 13(4): 558–579.Google Scholar
  66. Steenbergen, Marco R., und David J. Scott. 2004. Contesting Europe? The salience of European integration as a party issue. In European integration and political conflict, Hrsg. Gary Marks und Marco R. Steenbergen, 165–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Steenbergen, Marco R., Erica E. Edwards, und Catherine E. De Vries. 2007. Who’s cueing whom? Mass-elite linkages and the future of European integration. European Union Politics 8(1): 13–35.Google Scholar
  68. Volkens, Andrea, Judith Bara, Ian Budge, Michael D. McDonald, und Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 2013. Mapping policy preferences from texts III. Statistical solutions for manifesto analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. de Vries, Catherine E., und Marc Van de Wardt. 2011. EU issue salience and domestic party competition. In Issue salience in international politics, Hrsg. Kai Oppermann und Henrike Viehrig, 173–187. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Wagner, Markus, und Thomas Meyer. 2014. Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics 37(5): 1019–1045.Google Scholar
  71. Whitefield, Stephen, und Robert Rohrschneider. 2015. The salience of European integration to party competition: Western and Eastern Europe compared. East European Politics and Societies and Culture 29(1): 12–39.Google Scholar
  72. de Wilde, Pieter, und Michael Zürn. 2012. Can the politicization of European integration be reversed? Journal of Common Market Studies 50(1): 137–153.Google Scholar
  73. Wüst, Andreas, und Andrea Volkens. 2003. Euromanifesto coding instructions. MZES Working Paper 64:1–45.Google Scholar
  74. Züll, Cornelia, und Peter Ph. Mohler. 2001. Computerunterstützte Inhaltsanalyse: Codierung und Analyse von Antworten auf offene Fragen. Mannheim: Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen (ZUMA), How-to-Reihe: 8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Der/die Herausgeber bzw. der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert durch Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geschwister-Scholl-Institut für PolitikwissenschaftLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations