See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333756046

Content analysis

Method · June 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21296.61441

CITATIONS READS

0 3,667

1 author:

Mimi Mihailescu
The University of Warwick
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mimi Mihailescu on 13 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Content analysis: a digital method

Introduction

Content Analysis can be perceived as a scientific exploration of content in the pursuance of

creating systematic references and inferences to the meanings, contexts and objectives
contained within texts, messages and other forms of communications, allowing valid and
replicable results for further research (Prasad, 2008). It allows the analysis of what is
contained within a message, forming conclusions and inferences about it (Nachmias &
Nachmias, 1976), having a non-obtrusive form of analysis of communication, the result of the
communication being explored, disregarding, for example, the results of individual’s answers
to questions (Prasad, 2008).

There is a myriad of scholarly definitions of content analysis as a research method, being

described by Krippendorff (2018:403) as “a research technique for making replicable and valid
inferences from data to their contexts.” Something which was prior defined by Holsti (cited in
Kassarjian, 1977) as a systematic method which identifies certain characteristics embedded
within messages and illustrated by Weber (1990) as a method to create inferences as to
analyse the sender of the message, the message itself and the impact it generates.

By examining the statements presented it could be argued that content analysis is used as a
method to showcase the content of communications, where the inferences which arise
through objectively and systematically investigating the meanings embedded into
communication are developing a shared set of interpretations which could be further
replicated, due to their focus on objectivity, validity and explicit rules. Thus, the sender, the
message and the receiver of the message are the object of the study, where the method of
content analysis is used in order to identify the array of views, interests, sentiments and
attitudes of individuals or groups, being them small, large or culturally diverse.

The purpose of the essay is to introduce and review the development of content analysis as
a digital method, assessing its relevance and major areas of application in understanding the

1
current digital social and cultural research, as well as the role it plays in forming an
understanding of contemporary digital cultural and social phenomena. Thus, in order to
achieve that, a historical background of the method will be introduced, focusing on its social
and cultural facets observed in the 20th century, along with the different variants of the
definition of the method itself. The current development of the method will be explored as
to understand their implementations in our present digital networked technologies,
environments or practices, providing a more general outlook of the implementations, delving
into the myriad of insights and findings the method of content analysis enables. Furthermore,
in order to grasp the facets developed, two areas will be examined: the usage of the method
of content analysis on the study of the YouTube influencers and online communities,
specifically 4Chan. Notwithstanding, the prospects for advances and challenges put forward
by the digital method will be considered and evaluated in order to comprehend the relevance
and further development of the method. A concluding section will discuss the implications of
utilising such digital method, summarising the points previously expressed.

Historical background

The first instances where content analysis was utilised has been illustrated by Krippendorff
and Bock (2008) as situating the political differences of advocacy efforts of the content of
religious hymns surrounding the discourse of the 1743 Swedish state church, which has risen
a series of disputes. Content analysis, thus, was utilised to analyse the content and the context
embedded within the hymns, informing the churches decision, forming the basis of what it is
known today as content analysis. Nevertheless, a prior form of content analysis could be
found in the New Hampshire Spy newspaper when discussing the political commentary
section, where the frequency of specific words used for an anti-Federalist essay have been
visually illustrated in something similar to a word-cloud and explored in order to inform the
mass-audience of the similarities found in the content of the essays analysed (Halvey & Keane,
2007; ibid). Although not transparent and clear, the methodology used in describing the
advocacy of the political commentary column is depicting a rudimentary form of content
analysis.
The formal academic development of content analysis as a method can be traced back to the
early 20th century, in 1910s, in disciplines such as sociology and journalism, where the German

2
sociologist Max Weber has utilised the method of content analysis to examine the content
newspaper articles through a formal research across time, advocating for the usage of this
method in exploring the shifts encountered in the social trends over a period of time, drawing
upon the study of content in advertisements as a basis of study. In the same manner, Tenney,
a journalist professor has utilised the method of content analysis to analyse the political
trends of both national and regional interests showcased in the 1913 press (Drisko & Maschi,
2015).

This conscious utilisation of language and symbols can be found, as illustrated before the
World War II, where the main focus was understanding the manner in which words are
utilised in journalistic, scientific, literary or religious content by counting the words (Downe‐
Wamboldt, 1992; Krippendorff, 2018). Hence, this tradition of counting co-occurring words
or phrases, calculating their frequency of use has been a long-standing manner in which
content analysis has been utilised (Markoff et al., 1975; Neuman, 1989; Weber 1990;
Namenwirth and Weber, 2016). As stated by Weber (1990), the pivotal study in which content
analysis was utilised as a method in a large-scale application was the exploration of the Nazi
war propaganda by the U.S Office of Special Services, as to understand the co-occurring words
or phrases and the meanings embedded inside them.

Formal approach

Content analysis, hence, stated by Baran et. al (2004:410) as being "the objective, systematic,
and quantitative description of the content of communication" is one of the first
methodologies used in analysing the web (Bates & Lu, 1997) as developing conclusive
descriptive typologies, framing and recording for the method. McMillan (2000:61-67),
drawing on Krippendorf (2018), has developed a first perception of content analysis, in a more
traditional form, exploring the opportunities and challenged faced by the method when
applied to the web, summarising them in five steps which need to be taken in order to obtain
viable results: the first step involves the researcher to form a hypothesis or a research
question, the second one is the selection of a sample to analyse, the third step involving
setting the time frame and the creation and coding of categories, the fourth step is training
coders in order to assure the reliability of the coding, while independently analysing the
content, the final step being the interpretation and analysis of the data collided.

3
In this matter, a series of algorithmic and analysis software have been developed (Evans,
1996; Smith, 2000; Krippendorff, 2018), which have been designed to limit the subjective bias
and interpretation among coders, having lexical software which not only that create word
counts, but they can create a series of co-occurrences and links between the words.
Krippendorff (2018) states that formal content analysis involves a durable and analysable
data, which can be further replicated, comparing it across various time frames, where the raw
data is pivotal in achieving a viable analysis. Formal content analysis is based on human
subjective interpretation, where the focus, as already described falls upon the inter-coder
reliability. It could be argued that in the recognised steps of pursuing the formal content
analysis, McMillan (2000) does not disregard the already established methodologies of
studying old media, applying them on the new media, researchers having the scope of using
similar methods which have been previously established in order to get a further grasp of the
trans-media understandings.

It could be argued that this method of content analysis is a flexible methodology, used by a
myriad of disciplines, such as social sciences, political science, history, psychology and
language studies, however, the most extensive usage can be found in the discipline of social
sciences and mass communication due to its systematic and objective approach in creating
conclusive inferences. Thus, the wide range of subjects and themes it aims to explore are
social changes, issues and problems, such as social movements, harassment, discrimination,
be it against gender, race, ethnicity, the mass media content, which includes the nature of
news coverage, authorship, and it is not limited to analysing propaganda and political
elections, cultural symbols and even the changing themes and trends in various discipline
orientations (Prasad, 2008).

Challenges and Limitations

Nonetheless, this approach of calculating the frequency presents technical and time-
consuming difficulties, due to the large amount of data collided, the lack of software
developed to facilitate the scale of data and the comparison between content, as well as a
limited amount of theoretical ground (Roberts, 1997; Namenwirth and Weber, 2016). When
one applies the formal content analysis methodology on film, newspapers, to video games,
social media and other types of media, there are several challenges encountered, due to the

4
considerable volume of data which needs to be interpreted through a labour-intensive
manner, which is primary manual. These challenges are as Glaser (1978) states, to be primary
based on connotative interpretations, as the formation of connotative categories can present
issues with the coding rules, as well as with the coders themselves, due to the amount of time
necessary to assure a non-prohibitive feature, in which the interpretations require the
necessary “theoretical sensitivity”, which cannot be measured, creating a collaborative
analysis more reliable than an independent one.

Thus, this focus on word frequencies, occurrences and viable inferences has been further
amplified through capturing the intentions, context, meanings and consequences embedded
into text, aiming to understand the contextual environment in which the content was
produced, yet conceding an empirical approach. This unobtrusive method, has not only
introduced a new manner of going further, beyond the formal counting of words, but it has
enabled the development of new techniques of understanding individuals, groups,
institutions and societies as a whole, drawing on patterns, themes and beliefs through new
technological approaches such as artificial intelligence and machine learning in order to
understand the phenomena under study (Carley, 1990).

It is crucial to mention is the shift from the quantitative basis of the formal content analysis,
which aimed and was emphasised to be replicated to a qualitative context, to a much more
humanistic, not positivistic tradition, where the focus falls upon the iterative understanding
of the text. It can even approach a mixed mode of research, in combination with different
methodologies, employing a variety of analytical techniques and technology in order to
produce findings (White & Marsh, 2006).

Content analysis within the current digital networked environments

With the advent of the World Wide Web in the 1960s, the world has been revolutionised,
individuals being granted access to a universe of easily accessible documents and information.
However, the second generation of the World Wide Web, Web 2.0 has introduced a more
dynamic and interactive experience, where the primary focus is situated on Web-based
communities, fuelled by user-generated content in an array of variants, such as blogs, wikis,
social media, micro-blogging, podcasts, shifting the one-way conversation to an open

5
discussion. Hence, this enhanced user-generated content and modalities of conversations
have developed an unprecedent possibility to research this data available on the Web (Kim &
Kuljis, 2010). The Internet, without a doubt has generated a high interest in the international
academic debate, influencing the creation of an array of digital methods and research
processes across a wide range of academic discipline, preponderantly social sciences. The
characteristics of having a continuous growth of the data, resources and information, the
Internet presents an arena of experimentation in order to understand various facets of
society: culture, identity, communities and interaction, blurring the dichotomy of the online
and offline persona (Lee et. al, 2008).

Nevertheless, this web-based type of data, frequently unstructured is providing, as already

described an invaluable insight into the preferences, behaviours, attitudes and opinions of
users, however due to the fact that the Web is developed as a mixture of new and old
technologies, the challenges and opportunities it provokes are rising questions on how to
research it (Kim & Kuljis, 2010). It could be argued that the complexity of the content,
structures, function and web pages, as well as the mixed media, such as graphics, video,
audio, text and animation have provided an unencountered ease of accessibility, although it
creates challenges in analysing them. The web content analysis becoming something which
needs to be primary focused on identifying the links, characteristics and interactive content
which is the dominant facet of the web through a series of computational techniques
(Herring, 2004).

It could be argued that we live in an era of Big Data, which is known for further advancing
Internet research, where a massive amount of data produced by the human activity became
easily accessible through an array of technologically devices, tracking tools and sensors (Karpf,
2012). Manyika et al, (2011:1), states that “In a digitized world, consumers going about their
day—communicating, browsing, buying, sharing, searching—create their own enormous
trails of data”, showcasing the importance of studying, scrutinising and organising the data in
order to analyse individuals, especially when discussing about the development of the digital
media rapid changing environment and the new structural rules embedded within new forms
of communications, such as hashtags.

6
Thus, as Salah et al (2013) emphasised, these new technological advances have created new
paths for computational approaches, specifically within social science research. Content
analysis, as described above, became a naturalistic research tool (Miles et al, 1994; Marshall
& Rossman, 2014), being utilised both indirectly and directly to generate data and analyse it.
When it comes to the quantitative and qualitative approach to content analysis, there is a
considerable variety in the qualitative studies, in comparison with the quantitative ones,
coding being a pivotal factor in this difference (Hall, & Valentin, 2005). The quantitative
content analysis focuses on a statistically driven approach, where developing and analysing
numerical data is the basis of research, whereas the qualitative content analysis develops a
subjective interpretation of the content, where both the content and context are investigated
through a process of coding, based on themes or patterns (ibid).

Additionally, due to the increase in the computing software, having software acting as great
assistance when identifying and coding content, such as NVivo, has replaced the manual
labour involved in content analysis, allowing a further mixture of both quantitative and
qualitative approaches in the same study (Stepchenkova et al. 2009; Yu et al. 2011). The
interconnectivity of computer science and social science has risen the advances of
computational software and data mining methods, to analyse masses of data, such as media
content, websites, and specifically the content that circulates on social media (Bruns &
Burgess, 2012).

Nevertheless, this ability to collect online media data has becoming one of the most recent
focus of research, not only academically, but commercially as well, considering the fact that
digital media data is driven by a definitive degree of validity arisen from the everyday
behaviour of users (Mehl & Gill, 2010). As already illustrated, the non-obtrusive characteristic
of content analysis can effectively analyse the automatic traces left by the users, without the
need to observe and record the users first, limiting the risk of distorting the subjects through
obtrusive methods, the subjects’ awareness of the researcher, or artificial settings (Jankowski
& van Selm, 2005; Vogt et al., 2012).

The variety of the usage of content analysis is vast, researches including studies of news
organisations (Blasingame, 2011; Greer & Ferguson, 2011; Messner et al, 2012), Twitter usage

7
(Lasorsa et al, 2012; Bruns, 2012; Herrera & Requejo, 2012), non-profit organisations (Waters
& Jamal, 2011), foreign correspondents (Heinrich, 2012; Cozma & Chen, 2012, where both
the socio-cultural embedded contexts, as well as the content is analysed.

Challenges and Limitations

When it comes to the limitations and challenges put forward by the new form of content
analysis, there exist issues embedded within the process of the method itself, when dealing
with the sampling, coding and categorisation and analysis process. However, what is crucial
to mention is the new study of Internet which not only that brought new capabilities, but
issues as well.

Due to the fact that the information on the Internet propagates at a rapid pace, the external
validity of the web-based analysis is put under question, as a result of the uncontrolled
character of the Internet and the incapability to produce a representative sample of the
content studied, as well as put the content under specific categories and codes (Weare & Lin,
2000). Thus, this can produce an askew illustration of the society, as the method of content
analysis on its own cannot serve as a basis of allegations when it comes to the media effect
on the users, where the array of definitions and the subjective perspective of each individual
researcher, as well as the various tools and software of analysis can produce a myriad of
results which differ from each another (Wimmer & Dominick, 2013).

The Big Data, although beneficial to research, especially when it comes to large amount of
data, it produces limitations in scope and validity, specifically when the researcher is
overdependent of the software, rather than immersing within the data (Mahrt & Scharkow,
2013). Academics such as Manovich (2012), boyd and Crawford (2012) and Christians and
Chen (2004) have viewed the advancement of the Internet and Internet research with
scepticism, especially when it comes to the sampling of the data and the interchanging facet
of the web, already mentioned above, putting into question the meaning of the data
collected.

8
Additionally, Mahrt and Scharkow (2013) have stated that one of the challenges encountered
by researchers is the availability of data, which can be inaccurate or even invalid, proposing a
justification or theorisation of its use, purposefully drawing inferences, instead of defining the
measurements and analysis of the units prior of collecting the data, devoid of the theoretical
base, acting in contradiction with the traditional theory-driven analysis of researches, which
leads to questions regarding the generalisation and validity of the research itself.
Nevertheless, issues arise with the usage of the software, where the large amount of data
requires terms used to subjectively limit the results, something subject to increased error and
bias, the original data being extremely time consuming to be analysed (West, 2001).

Hence, the current digital networked environment is providing exciting new opportunities of
understanding the society, having the content analysis as a method under examination,
focusing on the reliability, practicality and validity of the research proposed.

Case studies

In order to present a more nuanced insight of the application and findings that the content
analysis method enables when analysing the digital society and culture, I will illustrate two
areas of examination, where the method of content analysis has been utilised in the study of
YouTube influencers and 4Chan as an online community. Through utilising illustrative cases, I
aim to add to the theory and general usage of the methodology already presented in the
paper.

YouTube Influencers

The video-sharing platform, YouTube, not only that became one of the most visited video-
sharing services, but it has become a focus of academic debates from various academic
disciplines. Snelson’s (2011) study has revealed that between 2006 and 2009, the academic
studies on YouTube have revealed a prominent trend of exploring YouTube through a content
analysis methodology, where the content of the video, as well as the comments were
analysed. Thus, content analysis has been utilised to examine certain aspects, which are
related to each discipline, such as the information technology studies, exploring user data and
the platform itself, following the same structure of reviewing the content, both the video

9
content and the comments, drawing links and observations and arriving to the final
comments. Examples of studies are Poulin’s (2008) examination of YouTube representation
of librarians, as well as Ache and Wallace’s (2008) analysis of the quality of YouTube videos
informing individuals about the Human Papillomavirus vaccination.

However, one topic of current academic interest are social influencers and their impact on
brands and communication with the prospect consumers. They are defined as a third-party
endorser of brands, who gained their influence on online platforms, such as blogs, video-
sharing websites, as well as social networking websites, pursuing a personal narrative format
in order to endorse a certain brand (Freberg et al, 2010). Having so much influence on
platforms such as YouTube and impact on viewers, studying YouTube influencers has become
an important aspect of academic study. Thus, I will present generally two studies in which
YouTube influencers have been studied utilising the content analysis methodology.

Forbes’s (2016) study focuses on the beauty industry YouTube influencers, specifically on the
top-selling company, Maybelline which utilises social media influencers to promote its brand.
Based on five characteristics found when analysing the YouTube videos of various influencers
in brand marketing, the author has explored the manner in which Maybelline has created a
strong consumer-brand relationship in a more organic manner, analysing three of the most
visible and popular influencers who produced sponsored videos depicting Maybelline
products. The trends of the 2015 have been analysed, closely following the influencers, who
had a great impact on the audience, having between 0.8 and 2 million subscribers, presenting
the trends for each season, showcasing various Maybelline products as part of the brand
sponsorship. Hence, through the utilisation of content analysis, the author has been able to
illustrate the five characteristics as being codes, following the manner in which each
influencer has managed to showcase those characteristics and managed to obtain a large
amount of views and comments.

Nevertheless, the second study is Mohr’s (2014) exploratory study, utilising content analysis
as a method to understand the role played by social influencers on YouTube in developing
the key elements of making a virally shared campaigns, understanding the levels of success
gained. Thus, the most popular 160 of videos from various categories, such as music, gaming,

10
sports have been selected, showcasing videos from categories such as sports and music. Thus,
the link between the social influencer on YouTube and video popularity was explored through
different variables such as the number of views, comments, likes/dislikes, the number of
subscribers, the categories of the videos and nevertheless any possible account of viral
activity. Using content analysis, the author was able to understand the viral phenomena,
delving into how the network functions and spreads.

It is vital to argue the fact that online video-sharing websites and the methodology of
analysing them encounter challenges, limiting the possibility of an advanced analysis, where
further insight on comments, captions, demographics and algorithms may present conductive
lines of inquiry.

4Chan and online communities

Online communities have become one of the most popular forms of communicating online,
the Internet further enhancing online participation and the formation of communities, where
the focus falls on user-generated content and the consumer-producer dichotomy (Velasquez
et al, 2013). Due to the textual nature of the online communities, previous studies have
focused on the textual analysis of the forums, however, due to the advances in technology
and interaction, the methods developed to study communities becoming varied (Malinen,
2015). Content analysis as a method has been widely utilised when examining online
communities due to its flexible character, especially when it comes to its applicability of
framework in an array of interests, such as politics, sociology, public opinion and marketing,
as well as in longitudinal research (Bryne et al, 2013).

It could be argued that, over the last decade, the imageboard website, 4chan.org has become
one of the most influential ecosystems, which generates online content and culture.
However, 4chan is considered to be part of the “dark side” of the Internet, due to its
preponderant hate speech, trolling, pornography and generally blamed aspects of society
(Hine et al, 2017). Its media attention and influence online, makes 4chan a pivotal, yet
understudied academic topic which will further add to the study of online participation.

11
Hence, two studies which have utilised content analysis when studying 4chan will be generally
examined.

Bernstein et. al (2011) have studied the popular “random”, discussion board /b/ on 4chan,
due to the popularity and active factor of the board, focusing on anonymity and ephemerality
online, performing a content analysis on a dataset of two weeks of activity on the threads
present on /b/. When it comes to the ephemerality of the discussion board /b/, the
fundamental characteristics are the rapid tempo and content deletion, further advancing a
selection mechanism which creates an environment of reposting and remixing, something
which can be perceived when analysing the amount of media circulating on the Internet,
originating from the board. The anonymity of the users, something which is a known
characteristic of 4chan, is viewed as something positive, provoking users to act in an antisocial
behaviour, while advancing intimate, open conversations, as observed on the /b/ thread.
Thus, by undertaking a content analysis, the strong influence of the /b/ thread has been
analysed, producing an insight of the 4chan user’s identity within the online community.

The second presented study is developed by Hine et. al (2017), analysing the Politically
Incorrect board /pol/ on 4chan in order to understand the advancement of hate and
extremism online. The /pol/ board is extensively known for its hateful and racist rhetoric,
having users align with the alt-right ideology, showcasing series of racism, xenophobia, social
conservatism characteristics. The study was conducted over a period of two months and a
half, utilising a data set of over 8 million posts. Two other boards on 4chan were consider for
this analysis, /sp/ (sport) and /int/ (international), showcasing a different approach and user
behaviour in comparison to the alt-right rhetoric on /pol/. Nevertheless, the content analysis
of the media and text posted on the /pol/ thread, is characterised by a hateful ecosystem, in
which the metadata of the images posted illustrate an impressive original content production.
Thus, by utilising a content analysis methodology, the authors have developed an insight into
the hate-culture dominating the /pol/ board, which not only that offers valuable data, but it
serves as a basis for further academic studies.

Due to the fact that the online communities and the rapid advancement of Internet, the
content analysis methodology faces difficulties in collecting the data due to issues

12
encountered with the API, as well as creating viable categorisations of memes in pursuance
of tracking their influence, something which is highly valuable in understanding how the
4chan community functions and diffuses.

Future of content analysis

As already illustrated, content analysis has already advanced from the formal approach to a
digital method, through a re-examination of the approach itself and the limitations it has
presented in this new interactive media environment. Put forward by Karlsson and Sjøvaag
(2016), the manner in which content analysis can advance as a methodology is through the
development of tools and technologies which aid the researchers and the research itself to
be as accurate as possible, as well as collaborating in order to produce original contribution
to the methodological field, testing new ways of interpreting.

Nevertheless, with the implementation of big data and computerisation, the theoretical
understanding of the method and the vast scope of topics which are being researched utilising
the method, can enlarge due to the advances in technology. The myriad of possibilities and
neglected topics can be further examined, advanced and proposed through the usage of new
data sources, new themes and issues, as well as the fast-changing environment of media.
Relevant examples include understudied factors from the sociocultural domain, which
influence society, such as new media advertising, political advertising, the interconnectivity
of media outlets, social media, terrorist attacks and patriotism, the economy of newly
instituted capitalist countries, and the list can further continue. Further studies, which are
part of the media environment, both embedded within the Internet, but not limited to it, can
generate viable research topics, such as chat groups, privacy and ethical issues, content
regulation, banner ads, as well as already explored data types such as digital archives (Mulvey
& Stern, 2004).

Furthermore, taking the study of violence as an example, due to the proliferation and
advancement of algorithms and big data, the content analysis method has further increased
the analysis of visual, audio and textual data in order to prevent future incidents and issues
(Stemler, 2015). On the other hand, what is pivotal in the future of content analysis is a strong
basis formed on grounded theory, which will enable a better understanding the issue or

13
theme analysed, both utilising theories to examine the data, but generating theory in the
same time (ibid).

The flexible manner of the method, specifically when considering the synergies between the
quantitative and qualitative methods, have generated a multi-method type of research which
contributes to the future of the content analysis, enabling academics to test their hypothesis,
having more accurate measurements (Mulvey & Stern, 2004). Hence, content analysis as a
method will contribute to further studies from various domains, as it can handle large
amounts of data, analysed used advanced technology.

Conclusion

To conclude with, this paper has presented the historical background of the content analysis
method, illustrating the debates surrounding it, as well as the definitions put forward by
academics. Content analysis as a method, represents a powerful tool of research, through its
flexible, yet pragmatic characteristic, developing and expanding insights within an array of
domains, specifically on digital research and culture, as it provides an interesting mechanism
to develop studies, which can be easily replicated. The challenges and limitations put forward
by the method have been analysed, where the amount of time required, as well as the
communication data, not limited to visual, written or verbal data constitute the main issues
faced by the method. Nevertheless, this paper has presented two different topics of research,
which are pivotal in understanding the ecosystem of the digital world in which we are living:
the power of influencers on the YouTube platforms, as well as the 4chan culture which has a
great, visible impact on the participatory culture of the Internet users. The future of the
method has been considered, where the technology and the advancement of algorithms and
software can definitely minimise the limitations of the method, making content analysis an
even more viable method of study.

14
Bibliography

Ache, K. A., & Wallace, L. S. (2008). Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage on YouTube.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 389-392.

Baran, S. J., McDonald, E., & Engberg, J. (2004). Introduction to mass communication: Media
literacy and culture. McGraw-Hill.

Bernstein, M. S., Monroy-Hernández, A., Harry, D., André, P., Panovich, K., & Vargas, G. (2011,
July). 4chan and/b: An Analysis of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a Large Online Community.
In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.

Blasingame, D. C. (2011). Gatejumping: Twitter, Tv News and Delivery of Breaking

News (Doctoral dissertation, Texas State University--San Marcos).

boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for Big Data. Provocations for a cultural,
technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5),
662–679.

Bruns, A. (2012). Journalists and Twitter: How Australian news organisations adapt to a new
medium. Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, 144, 97-107.

Burgess, J., & Bruns, A. (2012). Twitter archives and the challenges of" Big Social Data" for
media and communication research. M/C Journal, 15(5).

Byrne, C. L., Nei, D. S., Barrett, J. D., Hughes, M. G., Davis, J. L., Griffith, J. A., ... & Connelly, S.
(2013). Online ideology: A comparison of website communication and media use. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 137-153.

Carley, K. (1990). Content analysis. The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2, 725-730.

Christians, C. G., & Chen, S.-L. S. (2004). Introduction: Technological environments and the
evolution of social research methods. In M. D. Johns, S.-L. S. Chen & G. J. Hall (Eds.), Online
social research. Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 15–23). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

15
Cozma, R., & Chen, K.-J. (2012). What’s in a tweet? Foreign correspondents’ use of social
media. Journalism Practice. Advance online publication.

Downe‐Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health care
for women international, 13(3), 313-321.

Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2015). Content analysis. Pocket Guides to Social Work R.

Evans, W. (1996). Computer-supported content analysis: Trends, tools, and techniques. Social
Science Computer Review, 14(3), 269-279.

Forbes, K. (2016). Examining the beauty industry’s use of social influencers. Elon Journal of
Undergraduate Research in Communications, 7(2), 78-87.

Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media
influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90-
92.

Glaser, B., 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

Greer, C. F., & Ferguson, D. A. (2011). Using Twitter for promotion and branding: A content

Hall, C. M., & Valentin, A. (2005). 15 Content Analysis. Tourism research methods, 191.

Halvey, M. J., & Keane, M. T. (2007, May). An assessment of tag presentation techniques. In
Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1313-1314). ACM.

Heinrich, A. (2012). Foreign reporting in the sphere of network journalism. Journalism

Practice, 6 (5-6), 766–775.

Herrera, S., & Requejo, J. L. (2012). 10 good practices for news organizations using
Twitter. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 1(1), 79-95.

Herring, S. C. (2004). Content analysis for new media: Rethinking the paradigm. In New
research for new media: Innovative research methodologies symposium working papers and

16
readings (Vol. 2, No. 12, pp. 47-66). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota School of
Journalism and Mass Communication.

Hine, G. E., Onaolapo, J., De Cristofaro, E., Kourtellis, N., Leontiadis, I., Samaras, R., ... &
Blackburn, J. (2017, May). Kek, cucks, and god emperor trump: A measurement study of
4chan’s politically incorrect forum and its effects on the web. In Eleventh International AAAI
Conference on Web and Social Media.

Jankowski, N. W., & Selm, M. V. (2005). Epilogue: methodological concerns and innovations
in internet research.

Karlsson, M., & Sjøvaag, H. (2016). Content analysis and online news: epistemologies of
analysing the ephemeral Web. Digital journalism, 4(1), 177-192.

Karpf, D. (2012). Social science research methods in Internet time. Information,

Communication & Society, 15(5), 639–661.

Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of consumer

research, 4(1), 8-18.

Kim, I., & Kuljis, J. (2010). Applying content analysis to web-based content. Journal of
Computing and Information Technology, 18(4), 369-375.

Klaus, K., & Bock, M. A. (2008). The content analysis reader.

Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage

publications.

Lasorsa, D. L., Lewis, S. C., & Holton, A. E. (2012). Normalizing Twitter: Journalism practice in
an emerging communication space. Journalism Studies, 13(1), 19–36.

Lee, R. M., Fielding, N., & Blank, G. (2008). The Internet as a research medium: An editorial
introduction to the Sage handbook of online research methods. The SAGE handbook of online
research methods, 3-20.

17
Mahrt, M., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The value of big data in digital media research. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(1), 20-33.

Malinen, S. (2015). Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic

literature review of empirical studies. Computers in human behavior, 46, 228-238.

Manovich, L. (2012). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. In M. K.
Gold (Ed.), Debates in the digital humanites (pp. 460–475). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.

Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., & Byers, A. H. (2011). Big
data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity.

Markoff, J., Shapiro, G., & Weitman, S. R. (1975). Toward the integration of content analysis
and general methodology. Sociological methodology, 6, 1-58.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Sage publications.

McMillan, S. J. (2000). The microscope and the moving target: The challenge of applying
content analysis to the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 77(1), 80-98.

Mehl, M. R., & Gill, A. J. (2010). Automatic text analysis. In S. D. Gosling & J. A. Johnson (Eds.),
Advanced methods for conducting online behavioral research (pp. 109–127). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Messner, M., Linke, M., & Eford, A. (2012). Shoveling tweets: An analysis of the microblogging
engagement of traditional news organizations, #ISOJ Journal: The Official Research Journal of
the International Symposium on Online Journalism, 2(1).

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Huberman, M. A., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage.

18
Mohr, I. (2014). Going viral: An analysis of YouTube videos. Journal of Marketing Development
and Competitiveness, 8(3), 43.

Mulvey, M. S., & Stern, B. B. (2004). Content analysis research themes 1977-2000: Evolution
and change. ACR North American Advances.

Nachmias, D., & Nachmias, C. (1976). Research methods in the social sciences.

Namenwirth, J. Z., & Weber, R. P. (2016). Dynamics of culture. Routledge.

Neuman, W. R. (1989). Parallel content analysis: Old paradigms and new proposals. Public
communication and behavior, 2, 205-289.

Poulin, E. (2008). A whole new world of freaks and geeks: Libraries and librarians on YouTube.
LIBRES, 18(2), 1-11.

Prasad, B. D. (2008). Content analysis. Research methods for social work, 5, 1-20.

Roberts, C. W. (Ed.). (1997). Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing
statistical inferences from texts and transcripts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Salah, A. A., Manovich, L., Salah, A. A., & Chow, J. (2013). Combining cultural analytics and
networks analysis: Studying a social network site with user-generated content. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(3), 409-426.

Smith, C. P. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis.

Snelson, C. (2011). YouTube across the disciplines: A review of the literature. MERLOT Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching.

Stemler, S. E. (2015). Content analysis. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences:
An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, 1-14.

19
Stepchenkova, S., Kirilenko, A. P., & Morrison, A. M. (2009). Facilitating content analysis in
tourism research. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), 454-469.

Velasquez, A., Wash, R., Lampe, C., & Bjornrud, T. (2014). Latent users in an online user-
generated content community. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 23(1), 21-50.

Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., & Haeffele, L. M. (2012). When to use what research design. New
York, NY: Guilford.

Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit
organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321-324.

Weare, C., & Lin, W. Y. (2000). Content analysis of the World Wide Web: Opportunities and
challenges. Social Science Computer Review, 18(3), 272-292.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (No. 49). Sage.

West, M. D. (Ed.). (2001). Theory, method, and practice in computer content analysis (Vol. 16).
Greenwood Publishing Group.

White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library trends,
55(1), 22-45.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2013). Mass media research. Cengage learning.

Yu, C. H., Jannasch-Pennell, A., & DiGangi, S. (2011). Compatibility between text mining and
qualitative research in the perspectives of grounded theory, content analysis, and
reliability. The Qualitative Report, 16(3), 730-744.

20
 21

View publication stats