Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Information systems (IS) researchers have argued the need for using qualitative approaches, such as action research, ethnomethodology, phenomenology, and futures research, to supplement widely used quantitative approaches. Despite the interest in qualitative approaches, almost all IS articles published in leading IS journals during the previous decade continue to report the results of quantitative studies. The disparity between the interest in and adoption of qualitative approaches may be attributed to unfamiliarity with qualitative approaches for analyzing text data and the mistaken belief that all qualitative approaches are antipositivist. This paper makes qualitative methods more accessible to both researchers and practitioners by providing a framework that categorizes various text analysis approaches. The framework classifies methods as positivist, linguistic, and interpretivist, based on assumptions about the nature of text data, the researcher's influence on text interpretation, and the validity checks used to justify text interpretations. Thus, all researchers can consider qualitative text analysis methods regardless of their paradigmatic position. |
Year | Venue | Keywords |
|---|---|---|
1994 | J. of Management Information Systems | qualitative data,qualitative method,action research,qualitative approach,text interpretation,quantitative approach,text data,various text analysis approach,quantitative study,qualitative text analysis method,futures research |
DocType | Volume | Issue |
Journal | 11 | 2 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
63 | 15.01 | 5 |
Authors | ||
2 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mary Lacity | 1 | 1422 | 88.98 |
| Marius A. Janson | 2 | 173 | 37.52 |