Discussion: View Thread

Dear Viraj,
you have a couple of options. For an introduction I suggest that you might consider Boolean Algebra or Bayesian networks. See the set of attachments.

Other options are offered by
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003): Effect Sizes in Qualitative Research: A Prolegomenon. Quality & Quantity 37, 393-409.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech N.L. (2005): Taking the "Q" Out of Research: Teaching Research Methodology Courses Without the Divide Between Quantitative and Qualitative Paradigms. Quality & Quantity 39, 267-296.

Generally speaking the Journal 'Quality & Quantity' is a good source for more about links between qualitative and quantitative research.


You will find appropriate information about Bayesian Networks and Belief Systems at the following link.
The attached documents I retrieved from that Webpage:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Bayes/bnintro.html.

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
Two free software packages currently exist, which automate Boolean algebrarian calculations.
For more information please follow the corresponding link:
• QCA: http://www.fsqca.com
• TOSMANA: http://www.tosmana.net/

Some of the more advanced commercial software packages also offer analytical tools.
One of my students had programmed the analysis with 'R'.

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a methodology as well as a technique introduced
by Charles C. Ragin in the late 1980s, which may pave the way for a "middle road"
between purely quantitative and qualitative research strategies, bridging the gap between
both worlds (Rihoux 2004).
The new methodology based on boolean analysis allows researchers to handle multiple
case studies and nevertheless achieve generalizable models of strategic practice. QCA
(Ragin, 1987, 2000) allows for systematic, statistical analysis of causal relationships even
when the number of cases is too small for standard statistical tests, and the complexity of
data is too great for traditional qualitative approaches.

Brewerton, P., & Millward, L. (2001). Organisational Research Methods. London: Sage.
Creswell, W., John (1994). Research Design, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London:
Sage.
- (2003). Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London:
Sage.
Johnson, R. B & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose
time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Ragin, C., Charles (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative
Strategies. London: University of Califonia Press.
- (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: Chicago University press.
Ragin, C., Charles, & Beker, S., Howard (1992). What Is A Case? Exploring The Foundations Of
Social Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rihoux, B. (2004). Bridging the Gap between the Qualitative and Quantitative Worlds? A Retrospective
and Prospective View on Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Field methods, 15(4),
351-365.

Best wishes
Gerhard Fink



Viraj Varma wrote:

eS1bT_fN0GjNwB6og@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">Hello there,

First of all, let me apologize for cross-posting.

I have a couple of questions regarding content analysis, and was hoping somebody would be able to guide me.

First question:

I am content analyzing interview responses to an open ended question: When a major organizational change is announced in your organization, what initial thoughts come to your mind?

I have completed the initial coding and have obtained a frequency count of the major issues that are mentioned. However, what I would really like to do is to examine the sequence in which the major issues have been mentioned. The logic being that the first issue that comes to mind is more important (salience effect). So, instead of simply saying Issue A was mentioned N1 times compared to Issue B that was mentioned N2 times, I want to be able to be able to say Issue A was mentioned n1 times first in the sequence compared to B which was mentioned  only n2 times first, and therefore Issue A is more critical.

I was wondering if you have come across studies/papers that used a similar method. If yes, could you please share the cite?

Next question:

Here is a situation. Issue A is mentioned a total of N1 times of which it appears n1 times first in the sequence. Issue B is mentioned N2 times of which it appears n2 times first in the sequence. However, N2>N1 and n1>n2, i.e. Issue B is mentioned more times overall, but Issue A is mentioned first (in order) more times than Issue B. In such a case, which issue should be considered more critical?

I will summarize and post all the responses.

Thanks in advance,

Viraj Varma

 
*********************************************
Assistant Professor - Management and Marketing Department
D. Abbott Turner College of Business and Computer Science
431 Center for Commerce and Technology
Columbus State University