{"id":1202,"date":"2023-05-03T14:05:11","date_gmt":"2023-05-03T17:05:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/humanas.blog.scielo.org\/en\/?p=1202"},"modified":"2023-05-05T16:51:33","modified_gmt":"2023-05-05T19:51:33","slug":"mapping-output-in-content-analysis-in-scielo-brazil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/humanas.blog.scielo.org\/en\/2023\/05\/03\/mapping-output-in-content-analysis-in-scielo-brazil\/","title":{"rendered":"Mapping output in content analysis in SciELO Brazil indicates a technique that is caught in a time warp"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rafael Cardoso Sampaio, Associate Professor of the Department of Political Science at the Universidade Federal do Paran\u00e1, Curitiba, Paran\u00e1, Brazil.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Di\u00f3genes Lycari\u00e3o, Associate Professor of Journalism of the Institute of Culture and Art at the Universidade Federal do Cear\u00e1, Fortaleza, Cear\u00e1, Brazil.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"New<\/a><\/p>\n

The article Mapping and reflections on the use of content analysis in SciELO-Brazil (2002-2019)<\/a>1<\/sup>,2<\/sup> has just been published in the Portuguese journal New Trends on Qualitative Research<\/em>, indexed in SciELO Portugal. This is a scientometric review on the use of content analysis, in all research areas of SciELO Brazil, between the years 2002 and 2019 (SAMPAIO et al<\/em>, 2022a).<\/p>\n

Content analysis (CA) can be considered one of the main forms of qualitative data analysis in Brazilian research, either for analyzing texts and contents produced by different institutions or actors, or for evaluating the results generated by other data collection techniques of qualitative methods, such as interviews and focus groups, being also integrated with other techniques, such as systematic literature review (LYCARI\u00c3O et al<\/em>, 2022).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Vector<\/a>

Image: Freepik<\/a>.<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

We searched the SciELO collection in the Web of Science database and, after manually cleaning articles that did not use the technique, we reached a total of 3,484 references. In order to better understand the results, we divided the articles according to the three disciplines of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordena\u00e7\u00e3o de Aperfei\u00e7oamento de Pessoal de N\u00edvel Superior<\/em>, CAPES): Life Sciences, Humanities, and Exact, Technological and Multidisciplinary Sciences.<\/p>\n

Using the bibliographic coupling technique, through the VOSviewer software, our data indicate that there is more output in the Life Sciences discipline (n= 2,087) than in the Humanities discipline (n= 1,211), including highlights for journals in these areas, notably Collective Health and Nursing. While it sounds natural, it is the first time that this has been comprehensively evidenced in Brazilian research. As we know, the modern version of the scientific technique was created by Harold Laswell to analyze war propaganda in the 1920s, and then adopted by political communication later on.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Graph<\/a>

Image: Sampaio <\/em>et al (2022a).<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Figure 1. CA-based publications in Brazilian journals<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Now, our main finding confirms what we already suspected: Laurence Bardin’s manual \u201cContent Analysis\u201d concentrates the vast majority of citations. To reach this conclusion, we made a network of co-citations in our corpus, using VOSViewer (ECK, WALTMAN, 2010). All the clusters formed by the software show Bardin’s undisputed predominance in the Life Sciences and Humanities disciplines. We discuss below the relevance of such a long-awaited result.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Life<\/a>

Image: Sampaio <\/em>et al (2022a).<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Figure 2. Aggregate citations in the Life Sciences discipline<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Graph<\/a>

Image: Sampaio <\/em>et al (2022a).<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Figure 3. Humanities co-citation network graph.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As said, any researcher working with content analysis in Brazil knows (and usually points to) Bardin’s manual, so the fact that it is often cited in all areas is not surprising in itself. What is our concern then? Although several studies have evaluated content analysis in their respective fields of activity (NASCIMENTO, et al<\/em>., 2021; CASTRO, et al.<\/em>, 2011; PALMEIRA, et al<\/em>., 2020), as stated, there was no comprehensive survey of all areas of research on the matter. Now, empirically, it has been demonstrated that there are many citations to Bardin by all fields of knowledge in Brazil.<\/p>\n

Then the real questions begin. What’s wrong with Bardin being much cited? In summary, the manual was published in 1977 and last updated in the early 1990s, which means that it does not reflect the main methodological and epistemological discussions of the last 30 years. Some possible consequences are discussed in the text:<\/p>\n