Talk:Content analysis

message: Please provide a reference for the sentence that reads In 1931, Alfred R. Lindesmith developed a methodology to refute existing hypotheses, which became known as a content analysis technique. I have researched a number of credible sources such as Blackwell's Encyclopedia of Sociology and have not found a reference to Lindesmith being credited with a methodology that directly relates to the content analysis method.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knbrennan (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Needed

message: Can anyone who understands the area make this article a little simpler? I am from a science background (not humanities) and find the language very difficult to understand. 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent Simplification Suggested 

message: Because this is first an issue of spamming a number of links where the original editor has a clear WP:COI, it might be best to try to centralize the discussions at User talk:Piotrus#Talk:Qualitative research#Stustu12's external links and Talk:Qualitative research#Stustu12's external links --Ronz 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stustu12's external links

message: The external links need cleanup per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK.  If editors feel a list of tools would be useful, it would need to meet WP:LIST and especially have a inclusion criteria so the list can be managed from growing uncontrollably.  The normal inclusion criteria is for the list to only include items that already have their own wikipedia articles.  Because none of these do, they should probably all be removed.  It would be nice to find and include a link that actually lists such tools though. --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link cleanup

message: Simplified? you want to simplify the text because the language seems far more complex than it really needs to be? sorry but try reading books on researching communications in the media idustry... i had to keep checking my thesauras just to decifer what i was reading as i went along. To simplify the text would make it irrelevant (sadly) as this page on content analysis actually uses all the correct termanology..........please excuse my bad spelling, my brain is mashed from doing an assignment and reading all this unesscesary complex lingo...i've learnt a new language it seems--Liz K, not registerd either UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.101.243 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 February 2008 
:I had content analysis drilled into me in various research methods classes and it's really not that complex a method in reality: what makes it complex is the terminology you're referring to. This article should be written in simple easy to understand language that anybody can comprehend as far as I'm concerned. Articles of this nature are my pet hate, it's clearly been written primarily by someone who wants to demonstrate his/her knowledge of the subject and as a result it's become unreadable for those not acquainted with the terminology. Blankfrackis (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Terminology can be used - should be used - but should also be clearly explained. Thus a reader should take away both the understanding of the clearly explained concept, and of the terminology he will encounter when dealing with more specialized literature.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplified?

message: This article fails to take account of textual analysis in the humanities, as is done in the above three fields, for example.
:It's too stlanted towards science. For example, the scholarly study of the Bible, concerning its historical compilation, is omitted. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we need a disambiguation page to distinguish textual analysis? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Those things would not really be content analysis. This article is kind of a mess because it is trying to combine too many things. It makes it really hard to organize if it is going to include every single way scholars study texts. Textual analysis and hermenutics should be their own articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsmom (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So should it also be in Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics where an expert could take it on? Maybe someone there could figure it all out. I myself was interested in how it's used to discover plagarism and writing styles, including through computer programs. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 21:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No content analysis as a research method is mainly found in communications/media research, consumer research, education research and sociology research.  If you put "content analysis" into Google Scholar that is the kind of work you will see.  It has nothing really to do with typical linguistics or with the issue you are talking about (identifying authors).  That is about individual writing patterns not the content of the writing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsmom (talk • contribs) 13:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[philology]], [[hermenutics]], & [[semiotics]] 

message: I'd think this classic work should be discussed here. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fancy meeting you here.  It's surprising there's nothing about using such programs to determine who an "anonymous" author is, comparing anonymous writings with suspected authors. Particularly good for private eyes out to find libelers, etc. (Or govts out to find anti-government types.) Anyway, your article is interesting and it's one of several examples that could be used, including the anonymous author of the 1992 novel Primary Colors, who was proven to be Joe Klein. I added it to See also, as evidently did you. Right now article reads like a very boring tech page. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about making a section of prominent examples of the use of content analysis in different fields? E.g. Sociology (Thomas and Zaniecki and some others), attribution research (the Primary Colors example is relatively unimportant but well known so should be there if there is a valid link for it, but the Mosteller and Wallace work on the Fedralist papers, and some others.  And some examples from other fields.Mcsmom (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Polish Peasant in Europe and America]] 

message: This article has quite a number of problems. For example, as noted above, there is the whole section on Lindesmith that doesn't make sense.  There are also a lot of kind of implied references for example it says "the original classification by Krippendorf" as though that was a formative document rather than an integration of a body of work. Also most of the links to Tipaldo are broken, and the tone there seems not in the right style.  Also statements such as "Every content analysis should depart from a hypothesis." definitely have a POV.  Part of the confusion of the article is that it is mixing together in a messy way content from separate disciplines and some qualitative/quantitative arguments. I would propose adding some discussion of how the term is used in different disciplines (sociology, anthropology, media studies, political science, humanities) and industries (public relations etc) and a list of prominent examples of content analysis from specific areas.   If you read this article you would think that "Memetic convergence" is an important content analysis topic ... it's just totally confusing. I'm not sure if it should start over again or just have a bit by bit clean up.Mcsmom (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization and clean up

message: The intro seems incomprehensible to the general reader, and in style reads somewhat like a rather pretentious student essay. Ben Finn (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I have made some small edits, but I am new to editing Wikipedia so am hesitant to make the larger structural changes that I think this article needs. I would appreciate feedback on the following proposed structural changes:
* Move 'Uses' section up to follow the 'Goals of Content Analysis' section; these two seem closely related
* Move 'History' away from the 'Reliability' section, to follow directly after the 'Uses' section
* Add a new heading below "Uses" entitled something like "Methodological concerns", under which would be subheadings including:
** Quantitative and qualitative approaches [note: I really think a dedicated discussion of this 'divide' would be helpful to readers]
** Types of text
** Reliability 
** Computational tools
To me, the "More elaborate description" section is unnecessary, and has a disproportionate focus on one interpretation of content analysis that is not universal to the method. To make the article useable, I argue that each piece of content within that section should either be relocated to a briefer section elsewhere, or should be discarded. 
Cpgla (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed restructuring