Introduction To Content Analysis in The Management Field
Introduction To Content Analysis in The Management Field
A Content Analysis of the Content Analysis Literature in Organization Studies: Research Themes, Data Sources, and Methodological Refinements Vincent J. Duriau Rhonda K. Reger and Michael D. Pfarrer
Organizational Research Methods 2007
The online version of this article can be found at: http://orm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/5
A Content Analysis of the Content Analysis Literature in Organization Studies: Research Themes, Data Sources, and Methodological Refinements Vincent J. Duriau Rhonda K. Reger and Michael D. Pfarrer
Organizational Research Methods 2007
The online version of this article can be found at: http://orm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/5
Agenda
1. Review the principles and the advantages of content analysis 2. Assess how the methodology has been applied in management literature 3. Provide two mini-examples
Appropriate for longitudinal research designs Can be nonintrusive; does not suffer from researcher demand bias Multiple sources of data
Data Sources
Annual reports Mission statements Proxy statements Other publicly available documents Internal company documents Trade magazines Scholarly journals Business cases Computerized databases Open-ended questions in surveys Transcribed videotapes Interviews Other field data Measurement items
Topical Examples
Strategic groups (Osborne, Stubbart, & Ramaprasad, 2001) Impression management (Arndt & Bigelow, 2000) Downsizing (Palmer, Kabanoff, & Dunford, 1997) Negative organizational outcomes (Abrahamson & Park, 1994) Corporate crises (Marcus & Goodman, 1991) Corporate reputation (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990) Strategy reformulation (Huff, 1982) CEO succession (Osborn, Jauch, Martin, & Glueck, 1981) Concerns of the business community (Myers & Kessler, 1980) Corporate risk-taking behavior (Bowman,1982, 1984) Joint ventures and strategic alliances (Fiol, 1989, 1990) Many more
Table 1
Authors Mishina, Pollock, & Porac Ferrier Lee, Smith, Grimm, & Schomburg Ferrier, Smith, & Grimm Young, Smith, & Grimm Miller & Chen Hambrick, Cho & Chen Chen & Hambrick Schomburg, Grimm, & Smith Miller & Chen Chen & MacMillan Chen, Smith, & Grimm Smith, Grimm, Gannon, & Chen Birnbaum-More & Weiss Clapham & Schwenk Salancik & Meindl Bettman & Weitz Staw, McKechnie, & Puffer David Pearce & David Cochran & David McConnell, Haslem, & Gibson Bhner & Mller Ingram & Frazier Bowman Bowman Fiol Fiol Dirsmith & Covaleski Jauch, Osborn, & Glueck Osbone, Stubbart, & Ramaprasad Arndt & Bigelow Palmer, Kabanoff, & Dunford Abrahamson & Park Marcus & Goodman Fombrun & Shanley Huff Osborn, Jauch, Martin, & Glueck Myers & Kessler Date Field 2004 2001 2000 1999 1996 1996 1996 1995 1994 1994 1992 1992 1991 1990 1991 1984 1983 1983 1989 1987 1986 1986 1985 1983 1984 1982 1990 1989 1983 1980 2001 2000 1997 1994 1991 1990 1982 1981 1980 BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS BPS Research Theme Growth logics Competitive aggressiveness New product introduction Leaders and challengers Competitive activity Competitive repertoire Competitive moves Competitive behavior New product rivalry Competitive inertia Competitive responses Competitive responses Competitive responses Basis of competition Managerial attributions Managerial attributions Managerial attributions Managerial attributions Mission statements Mission statements Mission statements Corporate disclosures Corporate disclosures Corporate disclosures Corporate strategy and risk Risk seeking behavior Strategic alliances Joint ventures Environmental fit Environment-strategy fit Strategic groups Impression management Downsizing Organizational outcomes Corporate crises Reputation Strategy reformulation CEO succession Concerns of businessmen Data Sources PD, PS CD CD CD CD TM TM TM CD TM TM TM TM IN AR AR AR AR MS MS MS AR AR AR AR AR AR AR BC BC AR AR AR AR TM TM TM TM PD 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Longitudinal 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Focus Features AD FC, AD FC FC, AD FC FC, AD FC, AD FC, AD FC FC, AD FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC QA FC FC FC, QA QA FC FC FC FC QA FC QA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 Design Interpretation Methods 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 3 1 0 3 3 3 3 2 3 0 Test CATA 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2
0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
2 2 2 3
1 1 0 1
1 1 0 0
Table 1
Authors Gephart Kabanoff & Holt Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen Sussman, Ricchio, & Belohlav Abrahamson & Hambrick D'Aveni & MacMillan Fiol Carley Simons Barr, Stimpert, & Huff Narayanan & Fahey Date Field 1984 1996 1995 1983 1997 1990 1995 1997 1993 1992 1990 MOC MOC MOC MOC MOC MOC MOC MOC MOC MOC MOC Research Theme Sensemaking Organizational values Organizational values Corporate values Managerial attention Managerial attention Categorization Team mental models Cognitive maps Cognitive change Managerial causal maps Data Sources BC AR, MS, ID AR, MS, ID PD AR AR AR, ID OQ TV AR AR, TM 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Longitudinal 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Focus Features QA FC FC, AD FC AD FC FC FC, AD FC AD FC, AD 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 Design Interpretation Methods Test CATA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Boyd, Gove, & Hitt Bergh & Fairbank Scandura & Williams Mowday Berg & Holbein Bergh Bartunek, Bobko, Venkatraman Podsakoff & Dalton Flanagan & Dipboye Daft Reeve & Smith Kellog & Chase Mossholder, Setton, Harris, & Armenakis Ellis
2005 2002 2000 1997 1997 1995 1993 1987 1981 1980 2001 1995 1995 1989
RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM
Construct measures Measuring change Research methods Management research Longitudinal analysis Repeated measures Research methods Research methodology Research settings Organization analysis Job involvement Customer contact Emotions Differential item functioning
SJ IN SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ SJ MI ID OQ MI
1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
FC, QA QA FC, AD FC FC FC QA FC FC FC FC FC FC QA
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2
1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2
1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl Farh, Zhong & Organ Hodson Ahuja & Galvin Drusakat & Wheeler Bateman, ONeill, & Kenworthy-URen Schneider, Wheeler, & Cox Chen & Meindl Dewe & Guest Barley, Meyer, & Gash Machungwa & Schmitt
2004 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 1992 1991 1990 1988 1983
OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB
Language of leadership OCBs in China Organizational trust Virtual groups Self-managed teams TMT goals Service climate Leadership Stress Organizational culture Cross-cultural motivation
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2
1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 2
2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
0 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 3 1
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frazier, Ingram, & MackTennyson Freedman & Jaggi Wiseman Ingram & Frazier Anderson & Frankle White & Montgomery
Accounting disclosures Pollution disclosures Environmental disclosures Corporate disclosures Social disclosures Codes of conduct
AR AR AR, PD AR AR ID
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 1 0 1 2
FC FC, AD FC, AD FC FC FC
2 1 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
Wade, Porac, & Pollock Zajac & Westphal Thomson, Gentner, & Jeffrey
HR HR HR
PS PS OQ
0 1 0
0 0 0
FC FC FC
THOUGHT LEADERSHIP ON BUSINESS AND SOCIAL ISSUES Kiyatkin, Reger, Baum Data and Methods
Sample: Web sites, 4 clicks from home page 25 US News and World Report 2008 Best Business Schools 24 of the Top 25 2008 Fortune 500 Data Collection: Word list for 8 categories (approximately 120 words): Financial purpose, corporate citizenship, transparency, the environment, equal opportunity, family benefits, workplace safety, health, and philanthropic efforts Controls for website size, density, purpose and user interactivity
Results
Corporations pay more attention to all categories of social issues Corporations are more likely to frame social issues as integral to the purpose of business, not a means to financial performance Business schools are more likely to frame attention to social issues at enlightened self-interest, or as a way to maximize shareholders equity or firm profitability
Reputational Dynamics: Guilt by Association Zavyalova, Pfarrer, Reger, Shapiro Data and Methods
Time period: 10 years, 1997 to 2007 Sample: 45 toy firms (CPSC, Hoovers, SIC, firm websites); 1,935 firm-quarters, panel data Guilt: 78,846,675 toys recalled (CPSC) Actions: 3,846 actions (Business Wire, PR Newswire) Structured content analysis method widely used in competitive dynamics literature (Basdeo et al., 2006; Ferrier et al., 1998; Smith et al., 1991) Reputation: 32,482 articles and web blogs (Lexis-Nexis) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software Rate of positive or negative emotion words in a given text (Deephouse, 2000; Pollock & Rindova 2003, House & Wooders, 2006, Tetlock, Saar-Tsechansky & Macskassy, 2008)
2007 Robert H. Smith School of Business University of Maryland
Preliminary Findings
Magnitu de of Firm Guilt Magnitu de of Industry Guilt
Conclusions
Words Count! Content analysis methods are only limited by the imagination of the researcher