Department of Nursing, Umeå University, SE-90187, Umeå, Sweden.
Department of Nursing, Umeå University, SE-90187, Umeå, Sweden.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Aug;108:103632. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632. Epub 2020 May 15.
Qualitative content analysis and other 'standardised' methods are sometimes considered to be technical tools used for basic, superficial, and simple sorting of text, and their results lack depth, scientific rigour, and evidence. To strengthen the trustworthiness of qualitative content analyses, we focus on abstraction and interpretation during the analytic process. To our knowledge, descriptions of these concepts are sparse; this paper therefore aims to elaborate on and exemplify the distinction and relation between abstraction and interpretation during the different phases of the process of qualitative content analysis. We address the relations between abstraction and interpretation when selecting, condensing, and coding meaning units and creating categories and themes on various levels. The examples used are based on our experiences of teaching and supervising students at various levels. We also highlight the phases of de-contextualisation and re-contextualisation in describing the analytic process. We argue that qualitative content analysis can be both descriptive and interpretative. When the data allow interpretations of the latent content, qualitative content analysis reveals both depth and meaning in participants' utterances.
定性内容分析和其他“标准化”方法有时被认为是用于对文本进行基本、表面和简单分类的技术工具，其结果缺乏深度、科学严谨性和证据。为了增强定性内容分析的可信度，我们在分析过程中注重抽象和解释。据我们所知，这些概念的描述很少；因此，本文旨在详细阐述和举例说明在定性内容分析过程的不同阶段抽象和解释之间的区别和关系。我们讨论了在选择、浓缩和编码意义单位以及在不同层次上创建类别和主题时抽象和解释之间的关系。所使用的示例基于我们在各个层次上教授和指导学生的经验。我们还强调了在描述分析过程时去语境化和再语境化的阶段。我们认为，定性内容分析既可以是描述性的，也可以是解释性的。当数据允许对潜在内容进行解释时，定性内容分析揭示了参与者话语中的深度和意义。
