content analysis AO3

Evaluation points 🙂x4, 🙁x5

🙂

• high ecological validity

• Reliable

• Unobtrusive method

• Useful for measuring trends over time

🙁

• researcher bias

• Likely to be culture dependent

• Limited use

• practical issues

• Validity issues

🙂high ecological validity

Content analyses are based on direct observations of real media, which are current and relevant such as recent newspapers or children’s books in print.

This means it is possible to generalise findings to everyday life.

Therefore, content analyses have increased external validity.

🙂reliable

Because content analyses are indirect, sources can be retained and accessed by other (e.g. back copies of magazines or videos of people giving speeches).

This means that findings from content analysis can be replicated to test for reliability.

However, they could have a decreased inter rated reliability of behavioural checklist isn’t discussed and operationalised.

🙂unobtrusive method

With content analysis data collected from sources rather than live participants.

This means there is unlikely to be a breach of protection from harm and informed consent is not needed.

Therefore, it upholds the BPS ethical guidelines, making it more credible.

🙂useful for measuring trends over time

They can offer a fresh interpretation of existing data.

This means they are useful for documenting trends over time.

Therefore, they can provide an insight into areas that may not be possible using other methods.

🙁researcher bias

The researcher needs to interpret coding scheme and a behavioural checklist, which may be subjective.

This means results could be biased.

Therefore, the findings have a reduced internal validity.

However, internal validity could be increased through training and standardisation and if they are clear and unambiguous.

🙁likely to be culture dependent

The interpretation will be affected by language and culture from which the media is obtained.

This means it is likely to be ethnocentric.

Therefore, this reduces the generalisability of findings and makes them more idiographic.

🙁limited use

It merely describes what is there and won’t reveal motives for observed patterns.

This means content analysis isn’t as useful as other methods.

Therefore, given psychology is a science, this is a problem because science’s aim is to understand the reasons for phenomenons occurring.

🙁practical issues

It requires analysis of secondary data, which isn’t collected themself and may be limited by availability of material.

This means even the best researchers may be limited in research questions they can ask,

Therefore, internal validity of findings may decrease if they misinterpret data.

🙁validity issues

Observed trends may not reflect reality.

This means conclusions would be biased towards more dramatic events.

Therefore, conclusions would lack both internal and external validity.