What is the difference between qualitative content analysis and quantitative content analysis?
|
Mass tourism is a concept that has been used for decades in academic and public travel discussions, and thus it serves a purpose. Mass tourism is often used to refer to the early phases of air-based mass tourism since the 1960s, concerning the remarkable growth in tourist numbers, democratization of tourism, standardization of products and societal transformations. It is also used to emphasize certain motivations, behaviours and values in tourism that are seen as typical for mass tourism separating it from other contemporary or ‘alternative’ forms of tourism. This distinction frequently produces taken for granted or simplified categorizations both in tourism studies and in public discourses. Within tourism studies discussions about the conceptualization of mass tourism between different traditions have been almost non-existent. In this study, my interest is in the different ways mass tourism can be conceptualized. Tourism is now a larger phenomenon than ever and transformations have occurred in its production and consumption, demanding that the limits and possibilities of the concept of mass tourism need to be evaluated in new ways. This thesis contributes a conceptualization of mass tourism by addressing the academic discourses of mass tourism and discursive practices of professional social groups. The idea of mass tourism is approached from different strands of constructionist thought in order to create dialogues. The situated nature of knowledge and researcher positionality are also addressed in relation to knowledge creation of mass tourism. The thesis concentrates empirically on the stereotypical form of mass tourism, charter-based package holidays in the course of contemporary transformations in tourism. This Finnish case is useful because mass package tourism has traditionally been ‘travel for all’, offering a more democratic context for discussing the possibilities and limits of the mass tourism category. This dissertation consists of four studies that each shed light on the conceptualization of mass tourism with different materials and frameworks. The majority of the thesis is based on the empirical material that includes two sets of semi-structured interviews of 29 charter package tourism professionals. Pair interviews were conducted in 2011 for Finnish-based travel agents and individual interviews for Finnish tourist guides took place in Crete in 2013. Secondary material of academic research writings on mass tourism was utilized in one of the studies. The findings of the study reveal that mass tourism is a concept with a lot of historical weight, which guides its current categorization and interpretation in both academic and industry institutional settings. However, mass tourism is not easily defined, thus based on this study I propose a framework for more dialogical conceptualization of mass tourism. The framework starts with the contextualization of mass tourism (knowledge) as situated and proceeds addressing the plural-singular relationship of the ‘mass’ as a dynamic ‘mass effect’. These formulations are in connection with three intertwined possible versions of mass tourism: a quantitative category, a model(s) in tourism or as a ‘super-umbrella’ concept for contemporary travel. I encourage the research community to consider these aspects in relation to one another and position different cases within the framework. The framework shows that mass tourism conceptualization is a multidimensional process that includes choices with effects. This study suggests that the usefulness of mass tourism as a concept for research lies in building its future bases on inter- or post-disciplinary dialogues, which could better serve critical academic inquiry, and give purchase to the concept in describing tourism of today. Show
Under a Creative Commons license Open access AbstractThis paper describes the research process – from planning to presentation, with the emphasis on credibility throughout the whole process – when the methodology of qualitative content analysis is chosen in a qualitative study. The groundwork for the credibility initiates when the planning of the study begins. External and internal resources have to be identified, and the researcher must consider his or her experience of the phenomenon to be studied in order to minimize any bias of his/her own influence. The purpose of content analysis is to organize and elicit meaning from the data collected and to draw realistic conclusions from it. The researcher must choose whether the analysis should be of a broad surface structure (a manifest analysis) or of a deep structure (a latent analysis). Four distinct main stages are described in this paper: the decontextualisation, the recontextualisation, the categorization, and the compilation. This description of qualitative content analysis offers one approach that shows how the general principles of the method can be used. KeywordsContent analysis Credibility Qualitative design Research process Cited by (0)© 2016 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. What are 3 differences between qualitative and quantitative analysis?Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses. Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.
What is difference between qualitative and quantitative?In short, quantitative research is generally expressed in numbers or represented using graphs, whereas qualitative research is expressed using the words for the given data sets.
What is a quantitative content analysis?Abstract. Quantitative content analysis is a research method in which features of textual, visual, or aural material are systematically categorized and recorded so that they can be analyzed. Widely employed in the field of communication, it also has utility in a range of other fields.
What is the difference between qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis?Content analysis uses a descriptive approach in both coding of the data and its interpretation of quantitative counts of the codes (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; Morgan, 1993). Conversely, thematic analysis provides a purely qualitative, detailed, and nuanced account of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
|
