III.5. Content analysis (non-automated)

Forum rules

We encourage contributors to the Discussion Board to publicly identify by registering and logging in prior to posting. However, if you prefer, you may post anonymously (i.e. without having your post be attributed to you) by posting without logging in. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

Instructions
To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.

For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.

Tim Buthe
Duke University
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:39 pm

Exemplary research transparency in content-analytic work

PostSun Jan 08, 2017 4:31 pm

What published content-analytic work do you consider to be exemplary with respect to its research transparency? What makes it exemplary?

Post Reply


Barbara Koremenos
University of Michigan
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:58 pm

Re: Exemplary research transparency in content-analytic work

PostMon Jan 16, 2017 6:16 pm

TimButhe wrote:What published content-analytic work do you consider to be exemplary with respect to its research transparency? What makes it exemplary?


I really like the way Paul Poast goes about coding and discussing his coding. Poast’s (2011) study illustrates the point that the absence of systematic, reliable data on failed negotiations is an obstacle not easily overcome. Poast (2011) addresses this problem for one narrow sub-issue area: military alliances. In his context, he can rely on decades of archival research already conducted by historians and draw on a variety of published diplomatic histories to obtain information on members of the population of near-misses.

Post Reply



Return to “III.5. Content analysis (non-automated)”