3.8 Article

Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers

出版社

AUSTRALIAN NZ ASSOC HEALTH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS-ANZAHPE

关键词

qualitative content analysis; inductive content analysis; qualitative research methods

资金

  1. Danya Vears acknowledges the infrastructure funding received from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program
  2. Australian Government through the Medical Research Future Fund [76749]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces the method of inductive content analysis (ICA), explains its differences from deductive content analysis and thematic analysis, and discusses key considerations when using ICA in qualitative research. Using a study on practices and views around genetic testing in children as an example, a step-by-step account of analyzing text using ICA is provided.
Inductive content analysis (ICA), or qualitative content analysis, is a method of qualitative data analysis well-suited to use in health-related research, particularly in relatively small-scale, non-complex research done by health professionals undertaking research-focused degree courses. For those new to qualitative research, the methodological literature on ICA can be difficult to navigate, as it employs a wide variety of terminology and gives a number of different descriptions of when and how to carry it out. In this article, we describe in plain language what ICA is, highlight how it differs from deductive content analysis and thematic analysis, and discuss the key aspects to consider when making decisions about employing ICA in qualitative research. Using a study investigating practices and views around genetic testing in children as an example, we provide a clear step-by-step account of analysing text using ICA. Clear guidance on ICA will be useful for beginning researchers, especially those more familiar with quantitative biomedical and behavioural research, and for their academic and professional supervisors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据