Q: Is content analysis too heavily rooted in positivism to be useful to qualitative researchers? In your answer you should refer to examples from Politics and/or IR research. PDF

Preview

Summary

I will aim to clarify the ‘scientific’ stance of qualitative researchers to content analysis. My thesis is that due to the dominant position of positivism in political science, qualitative researchers compromise their stance to be ‘useful’ in the field ; this position is also known as Realism....

Description

15069876

Q: Is content analysis too heavily rooted in positivism to be useful to qualitative researchers? In your answer you should refer to examples from Politics and/or IR research.

Introduction I will defend the thesis that content analysis is a useful methodology for the aims of qualitative researchers, “by delving deeper into any political system” through acknowledging diverse understandings o f a particular social phenomenon (Enloe, 1996: 200). Nevertheless, qualitative researchers are entangled in the positivist criteria (henceforth called PC ) leading to ontological-epistemological position known as Realism . Consequently, a confusion arises as to how ‘scientific’ expertise is claimed by qualitative researchers, i.e. whether the researcher uses ‘scientific’ or ‘unscientific’ methods. Thus, throughout I will aim to clarify the ‘scientific’ stance of qualitative researchers to content analysis. My thesis is that due to the dominant position of positivism in political science, qualitative researchers compromise their stance to be ‘useful’ in the field; this position is also known as Realism.

Concepts However, priori to further examination of qualitative researchers’ position, it is worth defining the following terms:

(i) Content analysis r efers to a type of inquiry which examines the content of written, spoken, visual-, audio-documents and even digital copies of such texts (Henn et al. , 2009: 110; Pierce: 2008: 263).

(ii) Positivism i s the predominant epistemological position in the political science (Henn et al. , 2009: 111; Guba and Lincoln, 1994: 116; Neufeld, 1993). PC consists of the following features:

1

15069876

(1) Foundationalism: Since the social world exists independently of our knowledge of it, thus the researcher can establish objective truths about the social world (see ‘Foundationalism’ in Furlong and Marsh, 2010); (2) Burden-free scientists: “a scientific pursuit ‘free’ of the burdens of identity and space” (Enloe, 1996: 187); (3) Deduction: (i) a theory is formulated with its predictable outcomes, including dependent (or DV) and independent variables (or IV); (ii) hypotheses derived from the theory are tested; (iii) according to Popper (1962), “the fate of the theory…is decided …by the result of tests” (Hay, 2002: 30-31; Popper, 1962: 54); (4) Parsimony: t he researcher intends to identify as few variables as possible to then have predictable capacity and simply establish objective truths (Hay, 2002: 32); (5) Explanation: the observer aims to provide explanations as to how every DV (the subject of the inquiry) is caused by IV (Halperin and Heath, 2017: 127); (6) Quantitative approach: This approach allows to emphasise that the research is objective,

systematic

and

scientific

through

statistical

analysis

and

replication

(Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2002: 470).

(iii) A qualitative researcher i deally opposes PC (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2002; Neufeld, 1993). In the literature, qualitative researchers a re commonly associated with the criteria of Interpretivist epistemology (henceforth termed CIE ) (Henn et al., 2 009: 111-2;

 ould be as follows: Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2002). CIE w (1) Anti-foundationalism : the social world is constructed and interpreted by agents, hence there is no ‘objective’ standards, instead a multitude of understandings define a social reality (see ‘Anti-foundationalism’ in Furlong and Marsh, 2010); (2) Subjective scientists : the observer acknowledges her bias (Enloe, 1996); (3) Inductive approach: (i) data collection is undertaken; (ii) hypotheses are formulate from the findings; (iii) a theory is formulated based on the data collection (Hay, 2002: 31); (4) Complexity: many IV are involved in understanding of a social phenomenon (Hay, 2002); (5) Understanding: interpretations of a social phenomenon are the core of the research especially of marginalised, powerless agents (Enloe, 1996);

2

15069876

(6) Qualitative approach: Such approach allows for in-depth insight into agents’ understandings of the context that they are embedded in (see Enloe’s content analysis (1996) of Castellanos’ novel, ‘The Nine Guardians’).

Content analysis: manifest content v. latent content In the literature, there is an emphasised dichotomy to content analysis: quantitative approach and qualitative approach ( Halperin and Heath, 2017; Drisko and Maschi, 2015). The difference lies how the content is examined: the manifest content a nd latent content (Halperin and Heath, 2017: 346).

Quantitative researchers utilise the manifest content t o examine literal meanings of texts (Drisko and Maschi, 2015: 2). These researchers focus on “frequency of word or passage use” to determine the content’s significance (Drisko and Maschi, 2015: 3). For example, Takeda’s large N comparative analysis examines the manifest content o f “the coverage of Asian Pacific Americans [or ‘APA’] in twenty-eight American Government or Politics textbooks”, which are produced by major publishers (Takeda, 2015: 430-2). Takeda (2015), in adopting deduction, asserts that his thesis is that there is the undermined role of APA in the introductory American Politics textbooks. Furthermore, Takeda (2015) operationalises and measures ‘APA’ (DV), through indexical investigation, for example: where APA are cited in textbooks, or mentioned in chapters on political “behaviour” (Takeda, 2015: 432). Moreover, his research design has predictable capacity and simplicity in deriving on how his DV is caused by IV. Takeda explains that DV is impacted by IV, namely two “stereotypes”: (i) “forgotten/token minority”, and (ii) “model minority myth” (Takeda, 2015: 432). In his results, one of the crucial findings is that “[t]he average coverage of [APA] in a textbook is 1.13 pages” (Takeda, 2015: 433). Such finding confirms Takeda’s thesis. His analysis strictly follows PC. However, Takeda does not acknowledge his bias (linked to (1) and (2) of PC ) which may skew the results.

Qualitative researchers uses manifest a nd latent content analysis, since latent content a llows to examine the subtle implications of manifest content ; latent content a nalysis clarifies any ambiguities behind the usage of themes or words, which meant to persuade the audience 3

15069876

(Drisko and Maschi, 2015: 3-4). Bacon’s narrative analysis (2015) of Vladimir Putin’s Crimea Speech 2014 exemplifies this very point. For instance, he identifies the frequency of themes declared and the significance of such themes in the development of Putinism (Bacon, 2015: 18-20). The themes identified are: (i) national unity, (ii) long-term stability, and (iii) a new motif: “the importance of ethnicity and civilisational identity” (Bacon, 2015: 18-20). Furthermore, Bacon’s foundationalist stance assumes that Putin’s speech (DV) can be investigated independently of the researcher’s bias. In contrast to PC , his analysis is concerned with historical understanding o f Putin’s Russia, which implies research favours complexity . Bacon’s discussion extends beyond the analysis of central motifs used in the speech, for instance, it investigates how temporality is defined in the speech itself (Bacon, 2015: 22). His induction begins with classification, such as: ‘central motifs’, ‘temporalities’, or ‘domestic impact’, and through summarisation of each category, and concludes how the Crimea speech reflects the development of Putinism. Nevertheless, the obstacle remains that Bacon is rooted within the (1) and (2) of PC , even though that overall his analysis complements (3)-(6) of CIE. Bacon’s stance reflects Realism (see ‘Realism’ in Furlong and Marsh, 2010). Realists agree with positivists on (1) of PC, nevertheless, realists also assert (4) and (5) of CIE. Ultimately realists compromise CIE , especially (2) and (6), which has implications on the overall methodology.

Methods: ‘Scientific’ v. ‘Unscientific’

Qualitative researchers’ realist stance reflects the predominant definition of ‘scientific’ method in political science. Schwartz-Shea and Yanow (2002) in their “interpretive content analysis of fourteen research methods texts” conclude that interpretivist approaches in social sciences are labeled as ‘unscientific’ (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2002 : 457). For instance, in Jones and Olson’s textbook (1996) is implied that interpretivist approaches by rejecting “the empirical = quantitative = objective = scientific equalities are non- (or perhaps even anti-) scientific” (Shwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2002: 472). Neufeld (1993) also denies qualitative researchers’ association with CIE or “idealism” since the researchers’ findings “[are placed] in relation to a concrete historical context (material and social)” (Neufeld, 1993:

4

15069876

46-7). Thus, qualitative researchers uphold the realist position to conduct ‘scientific’ research.

Such argument is best assessed when comparing researchers investigating similar area, for instance, the Islamic State’s media content. Milton (2016) in his large N c omparison of manifest content a nalysis, from 9,000 official IS released media outputs concludes that the IS’s media outputs decreased between August 2015 and August 2016 (DV) (Milton, 2016: 21). He argues that DV is primarily caused by quicker and greater removal of accounts from Twitter and other anonymous file-sharing sites (IV) (Milton, 2016: 51). Such systematic, generalised conclusion leads the reader to assume the author’s neutrality, despite that the report was released by “United States Military Academy”. The acknowledgement that the report has a significant bias could be crucial for the US’s military strategy, especially since President Trump decided “to smash ISIS” (Weiss and Hassan, 2016). However, in accordance to the arguments presented above, Milton’s research will be valued as ‘scientific’, ‘systematic’, and ‘objective’ only since it embraces PC .

Alternatively, a qualitative researcher, such as, Larsson (2017) who conducted manifest a nd latent content a nalysis of “official IS media releases which accompanied the movement's declaration of a Caliphate in 2014” identifies the metaphor of aiding sword as “overarching narrative” to legitimise and implicate the caliphate (Larsson, 2017: 127). The analysis is reduced only to establish “thematic patterns [...] as well as a number of material and ideal interests” of IS and would be useful in a broader context of, for instance, the meta-narrative of the IS movement (Larsson, 2017: 129-130). Even though, the researcher acknowledges his bias, nevertheless, in placing his analysis as informing about the meta-narrative inevitably presents his position as compatible with Realism. The notion of the meta-narrative entails that the IS movement (DV) is capable of being studied independently of the researcher’s bias, which reflects (1) and (2) of PC. Thus, Larsson’s ‘useful’, ‘scientific’ content analysis proves my thesis again that the content analysis is deeply rooted within PC.

Conclusion

5

15069876

Throughout I proved my thesis that qualitative researchers have to endorse (1) and (2) of PC for their content analysis to be ‘useful’, ‘scientific’ within political science. I firstly advocated that qualitative researchers’ common stance, Realism, reflects their methodology, i.e. undertaking manifest a nd latent content a nalysis. Secondly, I asserted that the predominant positivist criticisms restrict qualitative researchers’ inquiry, i.e. the objective of the inquiry to ensure that the research is as ‘scientific’ as possible in accordance to PC . Thus, I conclude that content analysis is rooted in positivism and results in compromise of qualitative researchers’ ontological-epistemological and methodological stance.

Word count: 1647/1500

Bibliography: Bacon, E. (2015) ‘Putin’s Crimea Speech, 18th March 2014’. Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society , pp. 13-36. ISSN 2364-5334.

Drisko, J. and Maschi, T. (2015) Content Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/978 0190215491.001.0001/acprof-9780190215491. [Accessed: 13 March 2017].

Enloe, C. (1996) ‘Margins, silences and bottom rungs: how to overcome the underestimation of power in the study of international relations’, in Smith, S., Booth, K., and Zalewski, M. (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, pp. 186-202.

6

15069876

Furlong, P. and Marsh, D. (2010) ‘A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science’ in Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science. 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’ in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. T  housand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 105-117.

Halperin, S., and Heath, O. (2017). Political Research: Methods And Practical Skills. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hay, C. (2002) Political analysis: A Critical Introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Henn, M., Weinstein M. and Foard, N. (2009) ‘Chapter 5: Documentary Sources, Official Statistics and Secondary Data’ in A Critical Introduction to Social Research. 2 nd edn. London: Sage, pp.109-132.

Jones, L. E., and Olson, E. C. (1996) Political Science Research: A Handbook of Scope and Method. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Larsson, G. (2017) "The Caliphate And The Aiding Sword : A Content Analysis Of "Islamic State" Propaganda". Masters. Stockholms Universitet. Available at: http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1075031/FULLTEXT01.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2017]

Neufeld, M. (1993). ‘Interpretation and the ‘science’ of international relations’. Review of International Studies , [online] 19(01), pp. 39-61. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097319 [Accessed 15 March 2017].

Pierce, R. (2008). Research methods in politics: a practical guide . 1st edn. London: SAGE.

7

15069876

Popper, K. R. (1962) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge . Available at: http://xxsy.library.nenu.edu.cn/pluginfile.php/1066/mod_resource/content/1/%5BKarl_Poppe r%5D_Conjectures_and_Refutations_The_Gro(Bookos.org)%20(1).pdf [Accessed: 16 March 2017].

Schwartz-Shea, P., and Yanow, D. (2002) ‘“Reading" "Methods" "Texts": How Research Methods Texts Construct Political Science’. Political Research Quarterly,  55( 2), 457-486. doi:10.2307/3088061 Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088061. [Accessed 19 March 2017].

Takeda, O. (2015) "A Forgotten Minority? A Content Analysis Of Asian Pacific Americans In Introductory American Government Textbooks". PS: Political Science & Politics  48(3), pp. 430-439. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/div-classtitl ea-forgotten-minority-a-content-analysis-of-asian-pacific-americans-in-introductory-america n-government-textbooksdiv/CB1F0DEE87D0C9DE3F8929FF9B561C0D. [Accessed 14 March 2017].

Weiss, M. and Hassan, H. (2016) How to salvage Syria. Available at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/07/how-to-salvage-syria.html. [Accessed 20 March 2017].

8...