La modernización del análisis de contenido. Ejemplos de aplicación en evaluación socioambiental

  1. J. Andrés Domíngez-Gómez 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Huelva, España
New Trends in Qualitative Research

ISSN: 2184-7770

Year of publication: 2022

Issue: 14

Type: Article

DOI: 10.36367/NTQR.14.2022.E577 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: New Trends in Qualitative Research


Introduction. Content analysis (CA) is evolving towards adaptation to the increasingly diverse object of study as a mixed methodology. In this paper it is proposed (and justified) as a suitable tool for adaptation to complex and multidimensional objects, and also as a bridging tool between different areas of knowledge that work together on the complexity of our object; nominally, research on society-environment relations. Objectives: The aim is to explore the history of content analysis (CA) and its use since its origin in order to trace its evolution. In addition, an eclectic proposal of updated conceptualisation is made, with practical (research tool) and epistemological (approach of social and environmental scientific areas) usefulness. Methods. Bibliographic review and presentation of two cases with similar analytical needs, on the same field of study, socio-environmental impact assessments (SIAs) in mining in their governance and gender dimensions. This is an area of work in which specialists from a multitude of areas of knowledge coexist, where the need for mutual understanding is necessary for the success of the research. Results. In the case studies presented, CA is applied starting from qualitative data, to develop production under quantitative criteria (analysis of frequencies and co-occurrences) and useful in cluster and network analysis. Conclusions. The CA is shown as the result of an academic evolution towards methodological flexibility and epistemological rapprochement between sciences, both of which are necessary for a transdisciplinary approach to complex objects such as the socio-environmental impacts of mining.

Bibliographic References

  • Ambe-Uva, T. (2017). Whither the state? Mining codes and mineral resource governance in Africa. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 51(1), 81-101. Scopus.
  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin UK.
  • Birkmann. (2007). Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies. TERI Press.
  • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2019). The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory. SAGE.
  • Catton, W. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13(1), 41-49.
  • Cremades, E., Balbastre-Benavent, F., & Sanandrés Domínguez, E. (2015). Managerial practices driving knowledge creation, learning and transfer in translational research: An exploratory case study. R and D Management, 45(4), 361-385.
  • Domínguez-Gómez, J. A., & González-Gómez, T. (2021). Governance in mining: Management, ethics, sustainability and efficiency. The Extractive Industries and Society, 8(3), 100910.
  • Domínguez-Gómez, J.A. & López-Faneca, L. (s. f.). El desempeño minero global en términos de género. Economía, Sociedad y Territorio, En prensa.
  • Dundes, A. (1962). Trends in Content Analysis: A Review Article. Midwest Folklore, 12(1), 31-38.
  • Eck, N. van, & Waltman, L. (2009). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538.
  • Finsterbusch, K., & Wolf, C. (1977). Methodology of social impact assessment. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
  • Freudenburg, W. R. (1989). Social Scientists’ Contributions to Environmental Management. Journal of Social Issues, 45(1), 133-152.
  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE.
  • Glaser, B. G. (2002) Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International journal of qualitative methods, 1(2), 23-38.
  • Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
  • Krippendorff, K. (1990). Metodología del análisis de contenido. Paidós.
  • Lee, P.-C., & Su, H.-N. (2010). Investigating the structure of regional innovation system research through keyword co-occurrence and social network analysis. Innovation, 12(1), 26-40.
  • Leetaru, K. (2011). Data Mining Methods for the Content Analyst: An Introduction to the Computational Analysis of Content. Routledge.
  • Lozano, S., Calzada-Infante, L., Adenso-Díaz, B., & García, S. (2019). Complex network analysis of keywords co-occurrence in the recent efficiency analysis literature. Scientometrics, 120(2), 609-629.
  • Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). The ecological debt. Kurswechsel, 4(2002), 5-16.
  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Frels, R. (2016). Seven steps to a comprehensive literature review: A multimodal and cultural approach. SAGE
  • Romano, R. B., & Papastefanaki, L. (2020). Women and Gender in the Mines: Challenging Masculinity Through History: An Introduction. International Review of Social History, 65(2), 191-230. Cambridge Core.
  • Sinclair, L. (2021). Beyond victimisation: Gendered legacies of mining, participation, and resistance. Extractive Industries and Society, 8(3).
  • Thomann, E., Trein, P., & Maggetti, M. (2019). What’s the Problem? Multilevel Governance and Problem-Solving. European Policy Analysis, 5(1), 37-57.
  • Vanclay, F. (2003). Social impact assessment. International principles. IAIA.
  • Vanclay, F. (2019). Reflections on Social Impact Assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 0(0), 1-6.
  • Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage.