Qualitative Content Analysis : A Focus on Trustworthiness

Counting codes makes qualitative content analysis a controversial approach to analyzing textual data. Several decades ago, mainstream content analysis rejected qualitative content analysis on the grounds that it was not sufficiently quantitative; today, it is often charged with not being sufficiently qualitative. This article argues that qualitative content analysis is distinctively qualitative in both its approach to coding and its interpretations of counts from codes. Rather than argue over whether to do qualitative content analysis, researchers must make informed decisions about when to use it in analyzing qualitative data.

Two myths about qualitative research are that real qualitative researchers do not count and cannot count. These antinumber myths have led to the underutilization of numbers in qualitative research and to the simplistic view of qualitative research as non- or antinumber. Yet numbers are integral to qualitative research, as meaning depends, in part, on number. As in quantitative research, numbers are used in qualitative research to establish the significance of a research project, to document what is known about a problem, and to describe a sample. But they are also useful for showcasing the labor and complexity of qualitative work and to generate meaning from qualitative data; to document, verify, and test researcher interpretations or conclusions; and to re-present target events and experiences. Although numbers are important in the treatment of qualitative data, qualitative researchers should avoid the counting pitfalls of verbal counting, overcounting, misleading counting, and acontextual counting. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.