Help me with my paper
Coding in the main analysis is conducted much as in the pilot phase, except all material is now coded. There are various techniques that can be applied to further analyze the results of a content analysis, and various ways that the findings of a content analysis can be presented. The ultimate goal is to answer the research help me with my paper questions in a way that is valid and reliable. The following sections describe how these steps were carried out in this case study. The construction of the coding frame is one of the most crucial steps in a content analysis. After all, the coding frame defines the rules that govern the interpretation of the text. Thus, the construction of the coding frame defines the shape of the rest of the content analysis, including the segmentation of the text into units, the coding itself, and the tabulation and reporting of the findings. The starting help me with my paper point for a coding frame is a set of main categories, which define the dimensions or aspects on which the analysis will focus. Within each main category is a set of subcategories that specify what may be said about the aspect represented by the main category. In effect, the main categories are analogous to the variables in a quantitative study, and the subcategories are analogous to the levels of those variables. They will be answered directly through a content analysis of the interview data. A summary of the differences between the two content analyses used in this case study. It will be answered via a two-step process in which we first apply content analysis to that portion of the research data which pertains to a specific evolution (the evolution of the point-of-sale system), then use the results of that content analysis to construct a model of the evolution in accordance with our approach. A summary of the two content analyses appears in table 2. The differences between these two content analyses necessitate that their coding frames likewise be constructed differently. With a data-driven strategy, categories are based on the collected data—developed through progressive summarization of relevant passages of text or other similarly bottom-up strategies. With a concept-driven strategy, categories are defined a priori, without reference to the data.
Instead of being derived from the text, categories are based on preexisting theory, prior research, the format of the interviews, or other similar considerations. Most qualitative content analyses, Schreier suggests, will use a combination of data-driven and concept-driven strategies. Schreier emphasizes that the strategy adopted for developing a coding frame should be one that is suited 73 5 Case study: Architecture evolution at Costco to the goals of the analysis. I adopted a principally data-driven strategy for content analysis 1 and a principally concept-driven strategy for content analysis 2. Because the purpose of this content analysis is to describe the material in detail, a primarily data-driven approach is most suitable. To do so, I made a pass through the entirety of the interview data, marking and paraphrasing any passages that appeared relevant to any of the top-level categories.
I personally participated in some meetings too and saw this whole process as very cumbersome, very confusing, and frankly the result of that is not very good. The goal of this content analysis is to evaluate the suitability of a particular, preexisting model with respect to a specific evolution. This preexisting model forms the basis from which the coding frame is derived. Since its output will be used to produce an evolution model, content analysis 2 must serve to identify the elements that will appear in the evolution model.
Thus, the coding units in content analysis 2 are descriptions of the architectural elements (components, connectors, etc. The application of the coding frame help me with my paper will be discussed in sections 5. That is, for each element described by a coding unit, we want to determine through the content analysis how that element should appear in the model—whether it should be characterized as a component, connector, constraint, operator, or some other type of element. We also want to determine whether each identified element should appear in the initial and target state of the evolution model. Thus, the second output that content analysis 2 must yield is a determination of which phases of evolution they appear in: the initial architecture, the target architecture, neither, or both. The coding guide itself was written in a format typical of coding guides for content analysis. The full coding guide appears in appendix B, as noted earlier. For content analysis 1, the interview material was segmented thematically. How do you figure out where you want to go and how you want to get there?
Do you have processes to help you, or is it mostly just intuition and experience? Participant: A9 (Mostly intuition and experience, yeah. A segmented and coded passage from an interview transcript. Figure 11 shows an interview segment as it was segmented and later coded.
Segmentation was much more complex for content analysis 2. One challenge that this posed was how to deal with multiple mentions of the same element. To correctly identify and code an element, we must consider all its mentions throughout the source material. This stands in contrast to the piecemeal interpretative process that is more typical of content analysis, in which we proceed through the relevant passages of a text in sequence, coding each passage in isolation. In particular, we can consider multiple mentions of a single referent (e. Suppose an analyst samples fictional narratives with the aim of studying 5. They tend to interact and evolve over the course of the narrative, and information about them emerges in bits help me with my paper and pieces, often becoming clear only toward the end. To be fair to the nature of narratives, the analyst cannot possibly identify one unit of text with each character. Thus information about a recording unit may be distributed throughout a text. Once the analyst has described the recording units, it is these descriptions, the categories to which they are assigned, that are later compared, analyzed, summarized, and used as the basis for intended inferences. It may be mentioned many times throughout the material, in a variety of contexts that provide different information about it, all of which must be understood together to obtain a complete view. Content analysis has long been used for analyzing more than just prose. At a basic level, we can segment and code diagrammatic elements—boxes, lines, clouds, whatever—in much the same way that we can segment and code phrases and paragraphs. A coding unit in this analysis is something much more complex and multifaceted than a coding unit in a typical content analysis.
This complicates segmentation, and it also makes coding itself a much knottier undertaking, since properly categorizing a single coding unit now requires consideration of textual and diagrammatic elements that are spread throughout the material. After completing a draft of the coding frame and finishing the definition of the coding units, I applied the preliminary coding frame to the segmented text, noting any points of difficulty or confusion.