Advertisement

Quantitative Inhaltsanalyse

  • Swen HutterEmail author
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Das Kapitel stellt die Grundzüge und Begrifflichkeiten der quantitativen Inhaltsanalyse als wichtige Erhebungstechnik der Politikwissenschaft vor. Der Beitrag fokussiert auf die Beschreibung zentraler Schritte der Datenerhebung: von der Definition relevanter Analyse- und Auswahleinheiten über den Codierprozess zu den Gütekriterien. Veranschaulicht wird die Methode der Inhaltsanalyse mittels Beispielen aus der politischen Protestforschung.

Schlüsselwörter

Quantitative Inhaltsanalyse Analyseeinheit Codiereinheit Codebuch Protest 

Literatur

  1. Barranco, José, und Dominique Wisler. 1999. Validity and systematicity of newspaper data in event analysis. European Sociological Review 15(3): 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beissinger, Mark. 2002. Nationalist mobilization and the collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berelson, Bernard. 1952. Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bergström, Göran, und Kristina Boréus, Hrsg. 2017. Analyzing text and discourse in the social sciences. In Analyzing text and discourse: eight approaches for the social sciences, 1–22. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Císař, Ondrej, und Jiří Navrátil. 2016. At the ballot boxes or in the streets and factories: Economic contention in the Visegrad Group. In Austerity and protest: Popular contention in times of economic crisis, Hrsg. Marco Giugni und Maria Grasso, 35–53. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Danzger, Herbert M. 1975. Validating conflict data. American Sociological Review 40(5): 570–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Däubler, Thomas, Kenneth Benoit, Slava Mikhaylov, und Michael Laver. 2012. Natural sentences as valid units for coded political texts. British Journal of Political Science 42(2): 937–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davenport, Christian. 2009. Media bias, perspective, and state repression: The Black Pantehr party. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Porta, Donatella della, und Mario Diani. 2006. Social movements: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Dolezal, Martin, Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, Wolfgang C. Müller, und Anna Katharina Winkler. 2016. Analyzing manifestos in their electoral context: A new approach applied to Austria, 2002–2008. Political Science Research and Methods 4(3): 641–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs, Anthony. 1972. Up and down with ecology: The ‚Issue-Attention Cycle‘. The Public Interest 28:38–50.Google Scholar
  12. Earl, Jennifer, und Katrina Kimport. 2008. The targets of online protest. Information Communication & Society 11(4): 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Earl, Jennifer, Andrew Martin, John D. McCarthy, und Sarah A. Soule. 2004. The use of newspaper data in the study of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology 30:65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foltin, Robert. 2004. Und wir bewegen uns doch. Soziale Bewegungen in Österreich. Wien: edition grundrisse.Google Scholar
  15. Franzmann, Simon. 2013. From data to inference and back again: Perspectives from content analysis. In Mapping policy preferences from texts: Solutions for manifesto analysts, Hrsg. Andre Volkens, Judith Bara, Ian Budge, Michael D. McDonald und Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 210–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Franzosi, Roberto. 2004. From words to numbers. Narrative, data, and social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Früh, Werner. 2017. Inhaltsanalyse, 9. Aufl. Konstanz und München: UVK.Google Scholar
  18. Heindl, Andreas. 2015. Inhaltsanalyse. In Methodologie, Methoden, Forschungsdesign: Ein Lehrbuch für fortgeschrittene Studierende der Politikwissenschaft, Hrsg. Achim Hildebrandt, Sebastian Jäckler, Frieder Wolf und Andreas Heindl. Wiesdbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  19. Hocke, Peter. 2002. Massenmedien und lokaler Protest. Empirische Fallstudie zur Medienselektivität in einer westdeutschen „Bewegungshochburg“. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holsti, Ole R. 1969. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Hutter, Swen. 2014a. Protest event analysis and its offspring. In Methodological practices in social movement research, Hrsg. Donatella della Porta, 335–367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutter, Swen. 2014b. Protesting culture and economics in Western Europe: New cleavages in left and right politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutter, Swen, und Endre Borbáth. 2018. Challenges from left and right: The long-term dynamics of protest and electoral politics in Western Europe. European Societies.Google Scholar
  24. Hutter, Swen, und Marco Giugni. 2008. Protest politics in a changing political context: Switzerland, 1975–2005. Swiss Political Science Review 15(3): 427–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Imig, Doug, und Sidney Tarrow. 2001. Mapping the Europeanization of Contention: Evidence from a Quantitative Data Analysis. In Contentious Europeans: Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity, Hrsg. Doug Imig und Sidney Tarrow, 27–49. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Kleinnijenhuis, Jan, und Paul Pennings. 2001. Measurement of party positions on the basis of party programmes, media coverage and voter perceptions. In Estimating the policy positions of political actors, Hrsg. Michael Laver, 162–182. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Kleinnijenhuis, Jan, Jan A. De Ridder, und Ewald M. Rietberg. 1997. Reasoning in economic discourse. An application of the network approach to the Dutch Press. In Text analysis for the social sciences. Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts, Hrsg. Carl W. Roberts, 191–207. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, Ian Budge, und Michael McDonald. 2006. Mapping policy preferences II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Koopmans, Ruud. 1995. Appendix: The newspaper data. In New social movements in Western Europe, Hrsg. Hanspeter Kriesi, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem Duyvendak und Marco Giugni, 253–273. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Koopmans, Ruud, und Dieter Rucht. 2002. Protest event analysis. In Methods of social movement research, Hrsg. Bert Klandermans und Suzanne Staggenborg, 231–259. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  31. Koopmans, Ruud, und Paul Statham. 1999. Political claims analysis: Integrating protest event and political discourse approaches. Mobilization 4(2): 203–221.Google Scholar
  32. Koopmans, Ruud, und Paul Statham. 2010a. The making of a European public sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koopmans, Ruud, und Paul Statham. 2010b. Theoretical framework, research design, and methods. In The making of a European public sphere, Hrsg. Ruud Koopmans und Paul Statham, 34–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koopmans, Ruud, Paul Statham, Marco Giugni, und Florence Passy. 2005. Contested citizenship: Immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Edgar Grande, Martin Dolezal, Marc Helbling, Dominic Hoeglinger, Swen Hutter und Bruno Wüest. 2012. Political conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Jasmine Lorenzini, Bruno Wüest, und Silja Häusermann, Hrsg. 2018. Contention in times of crises: Comparing political protest in 30 European countries, 2000–2015. Florenz: European University Institute (unveröffentlichtes Manuskript).Google Scholar
  37. Krippendorff, Klaus. 2013. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 3. Aufl. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Lauf, Edmund, und Jochen Peter. 2001. Die Codierung verschiedensprachiger Inhalte: Erhebungskonzepte und Gütemaße. In Inhaltsanalysen, Perspektiven, Probleme, Potentiale, Hrsg. Edmund Lauf und Werner Wirth, 199–127. Köln: Herbert von Halem-Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Lehmann, Pola, und Malisa Zobel. 2018. Positions and saliency of immigration in party manifestos: A novel dataset using crowd coding. European Journal of Political Research 75(4): 1056–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCarthy, John D., Clark McPhail, und Jackie Smith. 1996. Images of protest: Dimensions of selection bias in media coverage of Washington demonstrations, 1982 and 1991. American Sociological Review 61(3): 478–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCarthy, John D., Larissa Titarenko, Clark McPhail, Patrick S. Rafail, und Boguslaw Augustyn. 2008. Assessing stability in the patterns of selection bias in newspaper coverage of protest during the transition from communism in Belarus. Mobilization 13(2): 127–146.Google Scholar
  42. Mueller, Carol. 1997. Media measurement models of protest event data. Mobilization 2(2): 165–184.Google Scholar
  43. Myers, Daniel J., und Beth Schaefer Caniglia. 2004. All the rioting that’s fit to print: Selection effects in national newspaper coverage of civil disorders, 1968–1969. American Sociological Review 69(4): 519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neuendorf, Kimberley A. 2017. The content analysis guidebook, 2. Aufl. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Oliver, Pamela E., und Gregory M. Maney. 2000. Political processes and local newspaper coverage of protest events: From selection bias to triadic interactions. American Journal of Sociology 106(2): 463–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ortiz, David G., Daniel J. Myers, N. Eugene Walls, und Maria-Elena D. Diaz. 2005. Where do we stand with newspaper data? Mobilization 10(3): 397–419.Google Scholar
  47. Rössler, Patrick. 2017. Inhaltsanalyse, 3. Aufl. Konstanz: UTB.Google Scholar
  48. Rössler, Patrick, und Stephanie Geise. 2013. Standardisierte Inhaltsanalyse: Grundprinzipien, Einsatz und Anwendung. In Handbuch standardisierte Erhebungsverfahren in der Kommunikationswissenschaft, Hrsg. Wiebke Möhring und Daniela Schlütz, 269–287. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rucht, Dieter. 2000. Protest in der Bundesrepublik: Strukturen und Entwicklungen. Frankfurt a. M./New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  50. Rucht, Dieter, und Friedhelm Neidhardt. 1998. Methodological issues in collecting protest event data: Units of analysis, sources and sampling, coding problems. In Acts of dissent. New developments in the study of protest, Hrsg. Dieter Rucht, Ruud Koopmans und Friedhelm Neidhardt, 65–89. Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  51. Rucht, Dieter, Peter Hocke, und Thomas Ohlemacher. 1992. Dokumentation und Analyse von Protestereignissen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Prodat), Discussion Paper III 92–103. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung WZB.Google Scholar
  52. Tilly, Charles. 1995. Popular contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tilly, Charles. 2002. Event catalogs as theories. Sociological Theory 20(2): 248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tilly, Charles. 2008. Contentious performances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tilly, Charles, und R.A. Schweitzer. 1980. Enumeration and coding of contentious gatherings in nineteenth-century Britain, CRSO Working Paper #210. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  56. Vliegenthart, Rens, Stefaan Walgrave, Ruud Wouters, Swen Hutter, Will Jennings, Roy Gava, Anke Tresch, Frédéric Varone, Emiliano Grossman, und Christian Breunig. 2016. Sylvain Brouard und Laura Chaques-Bonafont. Social Forces 95(2): 837–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Volkens, Andrea, Judith Bara, Ian Budge, Michael D. McDonald, und Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Hrsg. 2013. Mapping policy preferences from texts: Solutions for manifesto analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für ZivilgesellschaftsforschungFreie Universität Berlin und Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)BerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations