Advertisement

Content Analysis: Using Critical Realism to Extend Its Utility

  • Doris Y. LeungEmail author
  • Betty P. M. Chung
Reference work entry

Abstract

Content analysis (CA) has become one of the most common forms of data analysis, but it is often criticized for a lack of rigor and limited utility of its findings. We define CA and describe its general procedures and the three most frequently used forms of CA. Next, we review the history of CA leading up to its current popularity within diverse disciplines, including social science and healthcare disciplines. Its origins highlight concerns about researchers’ motivations underlying their interpretations of communications. In response, improved transparency and the application of CA in understanding underlying connotation in communications have furthered its evolution. CA can now be located on a continuum representing depth of interpretation, from surface description of phenomena to the uncovering of deeper meanings. We explore how CA may be used to uncover deeper underlying meanings and answer questions concerning how social relations, in connection with their context, affect outcomes such as individual behavior. By investigating deeper meanings, researchers can explore the core of the phenomenon and posit explanations of why the phenomenon is as it is. Finally, we argue that adopting an explicit philosophical orientation for inquiry will improve rigor and enhance practical utility of findings. We examine the philosophical and theoretical position of critical realism with CA. We then provide an example to illustrate the use of critical realism and outline the position’s key aspects to consider in future directions of CA.

Keywords

Content analysis History Qualitative description Critical realism Rigor Qualitative research utility 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Editorial services of Research Maven Consulting Services (http://www.researchmaven.ca) were enlisted to support substantive and copyediting of the manuscript.

References

  1. Allport GW, Faden JM. The psychology of newspapers: five tentative laws. Public Opin Q. 1940;4:687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhaskar R. Chapter 2: Philosophy and scientific realism. In: Archer M, Bhaskar R, Collier A, Lawson T, Norrie A, editors. Critical realism: essential readings. New York: Routledge; 1998. p. 16–47.Google Scholar
  3. Boniatti MM, Freidman G, Castilho RK, Vieira SRR, Fialkow L. Characteristics of chronically critically ill patients: comparing two definitions. Clinics. 2011;66:701–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camhi SL, Mercado AF, Morrison RS, Platt DM, August GI, Nelson JE. Deciding in the dark: advance directives and continuation of treatment in chronic critical illness. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:919–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cruickshank J. Positioning positivism, critical realism, and social constructionism in the health sciences: a philosophical orientation. Nurs Inq. 2012;19:71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Easton G. Marketing: a critical realist approach. J Bus Res. 2002;55:103–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elder-Vass D. The causal powers of social structures: emergence, structure, and agency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. George AL. Propaganda analysis: a study of inferences made from Nazi propaganda in World War II. Evanston: Row, Peterson; 1959.Google Scholar
  10. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kellner D, Roderick R. Recent literature on critical theory. New German Crit. 1981;23:141–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krippendorff K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2013.Google Scholar
  13. Leung D, Angus JE, Sinuff T, Bavly S, Rose L. Transitions to end-of-life care for patients with chronic critical illness: a meta-synthesis. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2016;34:729–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maxwell JA, Mittapalli K. Realism as a stance for mixed method research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010. p. 145–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mayan MJ. Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  16. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014.Google Scholar
  17. Nairn S. A critical realist approach to knowledge: implications for evidence-based practice in and beyond nursing. Nurs Inq. 2012;19:6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Philosophical foundations: critical realism. In: Mingers J, editor. Realising systems: knowledge and action in management science. Boston: Springer; 2006. pp. 11–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29841-X_2.
  20. Porter S, O’Halloran P. The use and limitation of realistic evaluation as a tool for evidence- based practice: a critical realist perspective. Nurs Inq. 2012;19:18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description. Res Nurs Health. 2000;23:334–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sandelowski M. Using qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2004;14:1366–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33:77–84.Google Scholar
  24. Sinuff T, Giacomini M, Shaw R, Swinton M, Cook DJ. “Living with dying”: the evolution of family members’ experience of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:154–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tong A, Fleming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181. Retrieved from https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181?site=bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. White MD, Marsh EE. Content analysis: a flexible methodology. Libr Trends. 2006;55:22–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson V. Research methods: content analysis. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2016;6:177–9. Retrieved from https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/12180/13124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of NursingThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongChina
  2. 2.The Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of NursingUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations