Scaling up Content Analysis

Communication Methods and Measures

Volumn 12, Issue 2-3, 2018, Pages 158-174

  Trilling, Damian ^a   Jonkman, Jeroen G F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044039126     PISSN: 19312458     EISSN: 19312466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19312458.2018.1447655     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Bird, S., Loper, E., & Klein, E., (2009). Natural language processing with Python. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
2. Borra, E., & Rieder, B., (2014). Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 262–278. doi:10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0094
3. Boumans, J. W., (2016). Outsourcing the news? An empirical assessment of the role of sources and news agencies in the contemporary news landscape (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.532941
4. Boumans, J. W., & Trilling, D., (2016). Taking stock of the toolkit: An overview of relevant autmated content analysis approaches and techniques for digital journalism scholars. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 8–23. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1096598
5. Broussard, M., (2016). Big data in practice. Digital Journalism, 4, 266–279. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1074863
6. Burggraaff, C., & Trilling, D., (2017). Through a different gate: An automated content analysis of how online news and print news differ. Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884917716699
7. Burscher, B., Odijk, D., Vliegenthart, R., de Rijke, M., & de Vreese, C. H., (2014). Teaching the computer to code frames in news: Comparing two supervised machine learning approaches to frame analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 8(3), 190–206. doi:10.1080/19312458.2014.937527
8. Burscher, B., Vliegenthart, R., & De Vreese, C. H., (2015). Using supervised machine learning to code policy issues: Can classifiers generalize across contexts? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 122–131. doi:10.1177/0002716215569441
9. Busch, L., (2014). A dozen ways to get lost in translation: Inherent challenges in large-scale data sets. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1727–1744.
10. Cioffi-Revilla, C., (2014). Introduction to computational social science: Principles and applications. London, UK: Springer.
11. De Rooij, O., Vishneuski, A., & De Rijke, M., (2012). xTAS: Text analysis in a timely manner. Proceedings of the 12th Dutch-Belgian Information Retrieval Workshop (DIR 2012), 89–90.
12. Driscoll, K., & Walker, S., (2014). Working within a black box: Transparency in the collection and production of big twitter data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1745–1764.
13. Freelon, D., (2014a). On the cutting edge of big data: Digital politics research in the social computing literature. In S., Coleman, & D., Freelon (Eds.), Handbook of digital politics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
14. Freelon, D., (2014b). On the interpretation of digital trace data in communication and social computing research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(1), 59–75. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.875018
15. Gerbner, G., (1983). The importance of being critical—In one’s own fashion. Journal of Communication, 33(3), 355–362. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02435.x
16. Gonzalez-Bailon, S., & Paltoglou, G., (2015). Signals of public opinion in online communication: A comparison of methods and data sources. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 95–107. doi:10.1177/0002716215569192
17. Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M., (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. doi:10.1093/pan/mps028
18. Günther, E., & Quandt, T., (2016). Word counts and topic models. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 75–88. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1093270
19. Günther, E., Trilling, D., & Van de Velde, B., (2018). But how do we store it? data architecture in the social-scientific research process. In C. M., Stuetzer, M., Welker, & M., Egger (Eds.), Computational social science in the age of big data. Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 161–187). Cologne, Germany: Herbert von Halem.
20. Guo, L., Vargo, C. J., Pan, Z., Ding, W., & Ishwar, P., (2016). Big social data analytics in journalism and mass communication: Comparing dictionary-based text analysis and unsupervised topic modeling. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 332–359. doi:10.1177/1077699016639231
21. Heiberger, R. H., & Riebling, J. R., (2016). Installing computational social science: Facing the challenges of new information and communication technologies in social science. Methodological Innovations, 9, 1–11. doi:10.1177/2059799115622763
22. Hellsten, I., Dawson, J., & Leydesdorff, L., (2010). Implicit media frames: Automated analysis of public debate on artificial sweeteners. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 590–608. doi:10.1177/0963662509343136
23. Hindman, M., (2015). Building better models: Prediction, replication, and machine learning in the social sciences. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 48–62. doi:10.1177/0002716215570279
24. Jacobi, C., Van Atteveldt, W., & Welbers, K., (2016). Quantitative analysis of large amounts of journalistic texts using topic modelling. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 89–106. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1093271
25. Jonkman, J. G. F., Trilling, D., Verhoeven, P., & Vliegenthart, R., (2016). More or less diverse: An assessment of the effect of attention to media salient company types on media agenda diversity in Dutch newspaper coverage between 2007 and 2013. Journalism, Online First. doi:10.1177/1464884916680371
26. Jonkman, J. G. F., & Verhoeven, P., (2013). From risk to safety: Implicit frames of third-party airport risk in Dutch quality newspapers between 1992 and 2009. Safety Science, 58, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.03.012
27. Kitchin, R., (2014a). Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2053951714528481
28. Kitchin, R., (2014b). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. London, UK: Sage.
29. Kleinnijenhuis, J., Schultz, F., & Oegema, D., (2015). Frame complexity and the financial crisis: A comparison of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany in the period 2007–2012. Journal of Communication, 65(1), 1–23. doi:10.1111/jcom.12141
30. Krippendorff, K., (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Kroon, A. C., (2017). Images of older workers: Content, causes, and consequences (PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11245.1/0980ab70-3251-498a-b5a3-9bc288023062
32. Lacy, S., Watson, B. R., Riffe, D., & Lovejoy, J., (2015). Issues and best practices in content analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1–21. doi:10.1177/1077699015607338
33. Lansdall-Welfare, T., Sudhahar, S., Thompson, J., Lewis, J., & Cristianini, N., (2017). Content analysis of 150 years of British periodicals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(4), E457–E465. doi:10.1073/pnas.1606380114
34. Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A.-L., Brewer, D., … Van Alstyne, M., (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323, 721–723. doi:10.1126/science.1167742
35. Lewis, S. C., Zamith, R., & Hermida, A., (2013). Content analysis in an era of big data: A hybrid approach to computational and manual methods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(1), 34–52. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.761702
36. Leydesdorff, L., & Welbers, K., (2011). The semantic mapping of words and co-words in contexts. Journal of Infometrics, 5(3), 469–475. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.008
37. Leydesdorff, L., & Zaal, R., (1988). Co-words and citations relations between document sets and environments. In Informetrics (pp. 105–119). Elsevier.
38. Manning, C. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S. J., & McClosky, D., (2014). The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) system demonstrations (pp. 55–60). Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P/P14/P14-5010
39. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K., (2013). Big Data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
40. Murthy, D., & Bowman, S. A., (2014). Big Data solutions on a small scale: Evaluating accessible high-performance computing for social research. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2053951714559105
41. Niekler, A., & Wiedemann, G., (2015). Semi-automatic content analysis for the identification of neo-liberal justifications in large newspaper corpora. In GESIS Computational Social Science Winter Symposium. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2283.1128
42. Niekler, A., Wiedemann, G., & Heyer, G., (2014). Leipzig Corpus Miner–A text mining infrastructure for qualitative data analysis. In Terminology and knowledge engineering 2014 (TKE 2014). Berlin.
43. Parks, M. R., (2014). Big Data in communication research: Its contents and discontents. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 355–360. doi:10.1111/jcom.12090
44. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., … Duchesnay, E., (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830.
45. Řehůřek, R., & Sojka, P., (2010). Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora. In Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks (pp. 45–50). Valletta, Malta: ELRA. http://is.muni.cz/publication/884893/en
46. Russell Neuman, W., Guggenheim, L., Mo Jang, S., & Bae, S. Y., (2014). The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets Big Data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 193–214. doi:10.1111/jcom.12088
47. Scharkow, M., (2011). Thematic content analysis using supervised machine learning: An empirical evaluation using German online news. Quality & Quantity, 47(2), 761–773. doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9545-7
48. Schnell, R., Bachteler, T., & Reiher, J., (2005). MTB: Ein Record-Linkage-Programm für die empirische Sozialforschung. ZA-Information, 56, 93–103.
49. Schuck, A. R., Xezonakis, G., Elenbaas, M., Banducci, S. A., & De Vreese, C. H., (2011). Party contestation and Europe on the news agenda: The 2009 European parliamentary elections. Electoral Studies, 30(1), 41–52. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.021
50. Shah, D. V., Cappella, J. N., & Neuman, W. R., (2015). Big Data, digital media, and computational social science: Possibilities and perils. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 6–13. doi:10.1177/0002716215572084
51. Sjøvaag, H., & Stavelin, E., (2012). Web media and the quantitative content analysis: Methodological challenges in measuring online news content. Convergence: the International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(2), 215–229. doi:10.1177/1354856511429641
52. Social Media and Political Participation Lab at New York University. (2016). smapPy. Retrieved from https://github.com/SMAPPNYU/smappPy
53. Strycharz, J., Strauss, N., & Trilling, D., (2018). The role of media coverage in explaining stock market fluctuations: Insights for strategic financial communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(1), 67–85. doi:10.1080/1553118X.2017.1378220
54. Trilling, D., Tolochko, P., & Burscher, B., (2017). From newsworthiness to shareworthiness. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 38–60. doi:10.1177/1077699016654682
55. Tsur, O., Calacci, D., & Lazer, D., (2015). A frame of mind: Using statistical models for detection of framing and agenda setting campaigns. In Proceedings of the 53rd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and the 7th international joint conference on natural language processing (pp. 1629–1638). ACL.
56. Van Atteveldt, W., (2008). Semantic network analysis: Techniques for extracting, representing, and querying media content. Charleston, SC: BookSurge.
57. Van der Meer, G. L. A., (2016). Communication in times of crisis: The interplay between the organization, news media, and the public (PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.532222
58. Van der Meer, G. L. A., Verhoeven, P., Beentjes, H., & Vliegenthart, R., (2014). When frames align: The interplay between PR, news media, and the public in times of crisis. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 751–761. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.07.008
59. Vliegenthart, R., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Boumans, J., (2011). Changes in political news coverage: Personalisation, conflict and negativity in British and Dutch newspapers. In K., Brants, & K., Voltmer (Eds.), Political communication in postmodern democracy: Challenging the primacy of politics (pp. 92–110). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
60. Welbers, K., van Atteveldt, W., Kleinnijenhuis, J., & Ruigrok, N., (2016). A gatekeeper among gatekeepers. Journalism Studies, Online First. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1190663
61. Zamith, R., & Lewis, S. C., (2015). Content analysis and the algorithmic coder: What computational social science means for traditional modes of media analysis. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 307–318. doi:10.1177/0002716215570576
62. Zoizner, A., Sheafer, T., & Walgrave, S., (October 2017). How politicians’ attitudes and goals moderate political agenda setting by the media. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(4), 431–449. doi:10.1177/1940161217723149