Ethiopian Civil Service University

School of Diplomacy & International Relations

Content Analysis as a Research Method:

Applications in Diplomacy and IRs

A term paper submitted in partial fulfilment for the course

Theory and Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations

Submitted to
Boniface Cuthbert Bwanyire (Ass. Prof.)

Prepared and Compiled by

Abdinasir Sugal Farah
Hibamo Ayalew
Moustopha Adaweh Galab
Mulugeta Berie
Nuh Mohammed
Rejaw Nuru

22 June 2015
SDIR

0
 Table of Contents
1. Introduction...........................................................................................................1
2. The Meaning and the Essence of Content Analysis ...........................................1
3. Main Purposes of Content Analysis ................................................................... 3
4. Stages Applicable in Content Analysis .............................................................. 4
5. The Economies and Diseconomies of Content Analysis in the Context of
Ethiopian Diplomacy and International Relations ................................................... 8
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 9
7. References ............................................................................................................ 10
1. Introduction

Content analysis as a tool for conducting studies in various disciplines in general and
in the field of Diplomacy and International Relations in particular, is an object of
contestations and disagreements. It is indigenous to researches in the field of
communications sciences that mainly focus on the study of communications,
messages and symbols across cultures, events, observable properties and things in
connection with the correlational discrepancy they exhibit. Perhaps it is among the
principal tools of research, for the scholars and practitioners in the field of Diplomacy
and International Relations. It is imbued with particularistic arguments that emanate
from the diverse points of views of the people who utilize while undertaking studies
in their respective areas of interest. Hence, in the following sections attempts will be
made to define content analysis, to explain its quintessence, to elucidate and
exemplify its principal purposes, enumerate the diverse steps to be applied in
undertaking content analysis and last but not least, to explicate the economies and the
diseconomies that may possibly result in the application of content analysis with a
peculiar reference to the Ethiopian milieu of diplomacy and international relations.
Mutatis mutandis, the main approach employed in the writing of this paper is an
explanatory one.

2. The Meaning and the Essence of Content Analysis

As is the case in the behavioural and social sciences, putting forward a clear cut and
unanimously acceptable definition of the term content analysis has been a problematic
endeavour since its emergence in the WWII era. Among others, the disagreements on
defining the concept of content analysis as a relatively distinct research method
revolve around the issues of what constitutes content analysis and whether it is a
qualitative or quantitative tool. But this doesn’t amount the general absence of any
definition that could be attributed to the concept.
By way of introduction, content analyses has been defined differently by different
scholars based on their respective disciplines, perspectives, experiences and at least,
what they want to achieve by employing it to the study of different scenarios of
interest. Accordingly, Prasad has defined content analysis as “the study of the content
with reference to the meanings, contexts and intentions contained in messages” (Prasad, 2008,
p. 1). For him, content analysis is all about finding out the gist of certain content
depending on what they would like to convey, under what circumstances and the
purpose it entails. In his monumental book Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its
Methodology, Krippendorff defines content analysis as “a research technique for making
replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their
use” (Krippendorff, 1993, p. 18). For him, content as the principal object of content
analysis “is not restricted to written materials.” Among others, it includes, “works of art,
images, maps, sounds, signs, symbols, and even numerical records may be included as data.” In

1
the context of diplomacy and international relations, “books, films, pamphlets, party
manifestoes, television programs, speeches, interviews, children’s readers, newspapers, election
commercials, blogs, diaries, letters, open-ended interviews, survey responses, cartoons”
(Hermann, 2008, p. 152) and the ones mentioned by Krippendorff fall under the rubric
of content that are to be examined either with the help of “computer-assisted software
(such as Atlas.ti, Nudist, Profiler+)” (Ibid, p. 151) or manually.
In the definition provided by Krippendorff, cited above, what makes content analysis
a technique is its employment of “specialized procedures”, its ability to make available
“new insights", that it “increases a researcher’s understanding of particular phenomena, or
informs practical actions” (Krippendorff, 1993, p. 18). In extension for Krippendorff, the
inherent virtue of content analysis, that it is “learnable and divorceable from the personal
authority of the researcher” is what makes it a “scientific tool” in the study of its objects
of analysis.
In his article in the online journal Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, “Qualitative Content Analysis” Mayring claims that “(t)he object of
(qualitative) content analysis can be all sort of recorded communication (transcripts of
interviews, discourses, protocols of observations, video tapes, documents ...)” (Mayring,
2000). But he warns against the reductionists who tend to treat content analysis as a
mere interpretation of “the manifest content of the material”. Mayring asserts that
“(c)ontent analysis analyses not only the manifest content of the material—as its name may
suggest” (Mayring, 2000). Citing Becker & Lißmann, Mayring demonstrates that the
purpose and the outcome of content analysis depend on “differentiated levels of content”
they have identified. This incorporates “themes and main ideas of the text as primary
content; context information as latent content” (Becker & Lißmann, 1973).
Apart from the explanations above, the attempt to clarify the need for quantifying in
scientific researches vis-à-vis qualitative approaches with respect to content analysis is
a matter of necessity in the understanding and utility of this tool. As a mostly
descriptive tool in the undertaking of various scientific endeavors content analysis,
most of the time is a qualitative research method. Emphasizing the pivotal role of
quantification in a myriad of studies Mayring claims that “qualitative methods have
proven successful as well, particularly in the political analyses of foreign propaganda, in
psychotherapeutic assessments, in ethnographic research, in discourse analysis, and, oddly
enough, in computer text analysis” (Mayring, 2000).
As to its emergence as an independent means of conducting scientific studies, the
inception of content analysis goes back the WWII era “when the U.S. government
sponsored a project under the directorship of Harold Lasswell to evaluate enemy propaganda”
(Prasad, 2008, p. 1). In the words of Prasad, “(t)he resources made available for research
and the methodological advances made in the context of the problems studied under the project
contributed significantly to the emergence of the methodology in content analysis.” As one of
the principal outcomes of the research project, Language of Politics published in the
1940s by Lasswell et.al, “still remains a classic in the field of content analysis” (Ibid.).

2
Gradually, the use of content analysis as one of the genres of research methods in the
conduct of scientific studies “spread to other disciplines” (Woodrum, 1984).
In fine, despite the disagreements among various scholars as to what content analysis
is, what it constitutes or whether it should qualitative or quantitative, it can be
simplified as “the analysis of what is contained in a message” while content “denotes what
is contained” in the message transmitted through a variety of objects of content listed
above (Prasad, 2008, p. 1). Broadly, content analysis may be seen as a method where
the content of the message forms the basis for drawing inferences and conclusions
about the content (Nachmias & Nachmias, 1976). That is to mean that content
analysis rests under the shadows of “observation and document analysis” (Prasad, 2008, p.
2). It is defined as a method of observation in the sense that instead of asking people
to respond to questions, it “takes the communications that people have produced and
asks questions of communications” (Kerlinger, 1986 as cited in Prasad, 2008, p. 2). In
the least, content analysis can also be understood as “an unobtrusive or non-reactive
method of social research” (Ibid).

3. Main Purposes of Content Analysis

From the three objectives of research, namely Exploration, Description and

Explanation the explanatory nature of content analysis is boldly observable. From the
definition and purpose of content analysis we can say that it is more of explanation or
deciphering the meanings for a commutable thing than the other two. Most of the
time exploratory research is conducted on to find a new phenomenon. In international
relations one may try to use content analysis method to explore new ideas.
The American political scientist, Ole Rudolf Holsti, in his 1969 book Content Analysis
for the Social Sciences and Humanities has identified fifteen ways content analysis can be
of pivotal importance in the conduct of scientific researches, which he clustered under
the purviews of three distinct purposes. Accordingly, the three major purposes of
content analysis he has identified are utilized in the main to: (1) make inferences
about the antecedents of a communication; (2) describe and make inferences about
characteristics of a communication and; (3) make inferences about the effects of a
communication.
Referring to the first purpose, a good example in this case is a scenario where the
Ethiopian diplomats strive to harness political, economic and military intelligence of
their Egyptian counterparts. It could also be exemplified by the Ethiopian
government’s efforts to provide legal and evaluative evidences to Ethiopia’s claims to
access to the sea via the Port of Assab. This purpose of content analysis is aimed at
answering the Why and Who research questions.
Secondly, in an attempt to find clues and answers to the basic questions of a study –
How, What and To Whom – researches who rely on content analysis describe scenarios
and try to make sense out of the implications they could have. Once again, the
Ethiopian governments attempts to analyse the techniques of persuasion (like
3
propaganda) used by President Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea and to pinpoint the patterns
common to all the messages he communicates could typical examples of this purpose
of content analysis.
Lastly, the multifarious efforts of various diplomats around the world (especially,
desk officers) invest in their endeavour to predict and describe to the extent of making
inferences about the possible aftereffects of the methods of communications and their
content could epitomize the third purpose of content analysis. In their activities under
this purpose of content analysis they try to demystify what risks or opportunities are
involved in communications among governments in one way or another. They
emphasize the question With what effect?
In conclusion, whenever and wherever content analysis is used as a viable tool in
research with respect to communication element vis-à-vis purpose, the first purpose of
content analysis is associated with the identification of sources of messages and the
choice of the appropriate encoding process. The second aspect specializes in the art of
filtering out feasible channels of communications, crafting the message and
identifying the potential and actual recipients of the message. The third and the last
purpose is targeted at the decoding process of the communications process, how the
recipients decipher the message and react to the content therein.

4. Stages Applicable in Content Analysis

A researcher who is trying to find the essence of a material or who tries to through
light on the way people use symbols in communicable contents need to answer certain
questions before adopting steps to follow. According to Hermann (2008) questions
like: (1) does the research question involve extracting meaning from communications?
(2) What kinds of materials are available and how accessible are they? (3) Does the
researcher’s interest in studying lend itself more to a qualitative or quantitative
analysis? (4) Does the researcher view the materials as representational or
instrumental in understanding the subjects he/she are studying? (5) What is the unit
of analysis, and what coding rules and procedures does he/she plan to use? (6) Can
one contextualize to take into account situation, culture, and history? (7) Can others
replicate his/her analysis? (8) Does the analysis capture what he/she is interested in
learning about? These questions are enables the researcher to have more defined
purpose and to contemplate the best way of achieving it.
Other scholars like Prof. Donald F. Treadwell also tried to come up with purely
practical steps for content analysis. Even though there are not exclusive steps in
content analysis we tried there are certain essential steps a researcher will follow after
deciding to address his research question through this method. In his book,
Introducing Communication Research: Paths of Inquiry, Treadwell has outlined the
following seven steps that are involved while doing content analysis.

4
4.1. Develop a Hypothesis or Research Question
As it is the case in other methods of research in content analysis we start with
developing hypothesis for the research. It can be expressed in form of statement of
question. For example one can analyse the speeches of G7 leaders in different
occasions and extract the future policy direction to Russia and identify each nations
stand to the issue, even though they claim to share common value. For this practical
case Research question like: Do G7 members have the same stand towards Russia
joining the group again? And can hypothesize that they have differences, which can be
expressed in magnitude.
Research questions help the analyst to guide its inference process. According to
Krippendorff (1993) questions are the targets for the analyst inference from the
available text. Questions delineate several possible and initially uncertain answers. As
both hypothesis and questions help to guide our analysis in this particular method, a
research questions is considered also analogues to hypothesis.
4.2. Define the Content to Be Analysed
If the researcher had priory addressed the above questions, the availability of
materials mentioned in number two, this task becomes easy. Here the researcher starts
with explain the kind of content he is focusing from the wide verity of materials, in
which intention is captured. Defining the document type, nature helps us to collect
our data easily from the priory defined sources. The document where we can find the
text to answer the questions set. As far as content analysis is the reduction of certain
content into some kind of understandable content, extraction of the data from the
document is important when you clearly define the source.
4.3. Define the Universe and Determine the Sample
When we think of the content type, and nature we are just identifying the source of
the data. In this process defining how many of it we have is defining the universe.
The researcher may want to analyse G7 head of states speeches. The whole speeches
made throughout time can be the universe, selecting the recent one hundred is a
sample.
Sampling becomes important when the document of analysis is huge and unattainable
to analysis the whole universe for the sake of feasibility and efficiency. Sampling
becomes essential to reduce the whole document in manageable form (GAO, 1996).
The method we select the samples in other types of researches can apply here too, we
may use probability or nonprobability sampling methods.
A unit of analysis serves as a measurement of our data. These are the things we look
for when we scan the document we are analysing during the analytical process.
The nature of the unit may differ according to our research design. Most of the time
in coding researchers prefers to use certain words as a unit of analysis but it doesn’t
mean that we always use words as a unit of measurement. This idea is clearly

5
elaborated in Hermann (2008) that units can range from words to phrases, sentences,
paragraphs, themes, and whole documents. If the researcher interest is in discovering
which political leaders challenge constraints as opposed to respect them, he may want
to learn when leaders take responsibility for an action – when they believe that they
have some control over what happens and have a need to have influence. Thus, in
examining interview responses, the researcher’s focus will on verbs or action words.
In outlining the possible units of analysis these area one can states more than seven
units of analysis. Some scholarly works clarify these units ranging from words, the
smallest element of analysis, to themes and the whole document (Treadwell, 2014).
Words, themes, characters (persons mentioned in the content), Paragraphs, Items,
concepts, Semantics (how strong and weak the use a word is), concepts can be used.
Without including semantics, characters from the above list Weber (1990) elaborated
six recording units are commonly used: word, word sense, sentence, paragraph, theme,
and whole text.
Words: When words are the recording unit, the researcher’s job is to categorize each
word. Using this as recording unit is easy and well-defined because we know the
physical boundaries of a word. When all words have been placed in categories, a
content analysis becomes simply a word count.
Themes: is the essence of the word or sentences. Some computer programs of coding
and analysis mechanically distinguish between the multiple meanings of a word and
can identify phrases that constitute semantic units the way words constitute semantic
units.
Sentences: Here the researcher is looking for full sentence with messages of certain
category. Although the physical boundaries of sentences are well-defined, using them
as units implies human coding, because computer programs cannot automatically
classify sentences as they do words and word senses.
Theme: The problems with sentence are solved with theme. When theme is applied as
a unit of analysis it suited better than sentences to coding open-ended questionnaires
because a theme can include the several sentences that are commonly a response to
such questions. Theme is a useful recording unit, if somewhat ambiguous. Because, a
boundary of a theme delineates a single idea; we are not restricted to the individual
semantic boundaries of sentences and paragraphs.
Whole Document: The whole document can be a unit of analysis, if we have
statements being publicized by the state department for US citizens on travel warning
to Ethiopia is a five years, we can take the whole document as a unit for analysis to
the content analysis we may conduct on US foreign policy towards Ethiopia.
The use of combination of the units of analysis is another method. This may help to
avoid some weakness in a single unite of analysis and supplement it with the strength
of the other unit. As it was stated above for the other steps the selection of unit of
analysis is directly feats to the purpose and the design of the analysis.

6
4.4. Develop a Coding Scheme
This is a classification of scheme into which the data is to be categorized for further
analysis. In this process developing a set of coding rules and procedures is important.
This process is setting general frame, based on which we can identify the data for
further inference. The coding frame are used to organize the data identify the result
after the coding is completed. The first coding process is multileveled process that
requires several successive sorting of all cases under examination (Budd & Thorp,
1963).
4.5. Assign each occurrence of a unit in the sample to a code in the coding scheme.
This stage is the recording of the data. If we had selected word as a unit of analysis we
look for those words and start to count and register the occurrence in the whole
document. It works like that for other units of analysis like that. Coding means to
mark recording units-that is, textual passages-with short alphanumeric codes that
abbreviate the categories of variables and that carry other information as well. Codes
are simply abbreviations, or tags, for segments of text. Before evaluators can code a
document, they must first create a code for each variable’s categories. To minimize
errors code should be abbreviated (GAO, 1996). After this job is done the researcher
can relatively expeditiously analyse it by, for example, counting the codes.
This process needs care not to lead to wrong conclusion. Once the data is coded in
category the next step is interpretation of the coded data, therefor careful coding
process is essential. Some works in content analysis identify major mistakes in coding
process. Orwin(1994), (as cited in GAO, 1996) identified four interrelated potential
sources of coding inaccuracy in most applications of content analysis, (1) deficiencies
in the documents, (2) ambiguity in the judgment process, (3) coder bias, and (4) coder
error For example, a poorly written document may lead to a coder’s making
ambiguous decisions, or ambiguity in the judgment process may set the stage for coder
bias. The first problem related to the document happen when a document is vague. In
this case the coder may become uncertain and make mistakes. Deficiencies in the
original documents cannot usually be remedied, but coding conventions can help
achieve coder consistency. The second problem related to judgement happens when
coder use same words open for judgment and judgment is open for error. The third
error is created with the coder’s preconception, he may have a prior knowledge and
that knowledge may lead him to have certain biases towards the issue. The final error
is related to coding mistakes. Coders are bound occasionally to apply coding criteria
incorrectly or just write down the wrong code. Such error can be systematic, tending
to favour or disfavour certain categories, or merely random. Wise choices in
constructing category labels can help to a void these kinds of mistakes
4.6. Count Occurrences Analyse the Data
In this stage the analyst counts the occurrence and tries to find the essence of the
document he is looking for. Starting from his research question he tries to give

7
meaning for the obtained data and description. Drawing inferences from the,
frequency of codes is the simplest and often the most useful form of data analysis.
From the coded data inference will follow. Content analytical inference may be
hidden in the human process of coding. They may be built into analytical procedures,
such as the dictionaries in computer-aided text analyses as well-established insides
(Krippendorff, 1993). For content analysis three types of inference methods are
identified by different scholarly articles. Deductive, Inductive and adductive (from
particular on kind to particular of another or General of one to the same of other) can be used.
4.7. Reporting the Result and the Methodology
As research should be replicable and verifiable by another body the need for stating
the methodology arises besides reporting the final result in understandable and
summarized form. The issue here is how easy is it to replicate the results content
analysis? Can someone else using the data used here, same coding rules and
procedures end up with similar results to yours? Hermann (2008) sometimes compares
the content analysis results to other forms of evidence we know from other kinds of
sources works as a method of making sure that the result is objective.
The producers used must be clearly stated as part of the report of the result. Result
need to be summarized and expressed in clear forms, as the mean purpose of the
content analysis is to extract the exact meanings of the communicable documents the
reports should not be vague. We need to make sure to put clear answer for priory sett
research questions at the beginning of our research.

5. The Economies and Diseconomies of Content Analysis in the Context

of Ethiopian Diplomacy and International Relations

As the most inexpensive, less obtrusive research technique content analysis has the
inherent virtues of reliability and replication. Using content analysis alone we can
acquire knowledge a country’s foreign policy orientations and strategies, bilateral and
multilateral diplomatic relations and its attempts to rejuvenate and integrate the
diplomatic activities the country undertakes to the contemporary state of diplomacy
that engages not just the state but a number of non-state actors. Relatively stating, of
all the research techniques at our disposal content analysis scores highest with regard
to ease of replication. The ease of access to readily available materials to be analysed
by this tool is by itself a plus. And when combined with other research methods like
interviews, observation, and use of archival records it becomes the quintessential tool
for conducting deep-rooted studies as in the analysis of historical diplomatic
documents for keeping track of trends and patters over the years. All the aspects of
content analysis mentioned above are what make it an economical tool in analysing
Ethiopia’s manifold diplomatic manoeuvres and international relations.
Being a purely descriptive research scheme and affected and determined on the way
by the availability of materials, content analysis more often than not, falls short of

8
proving us with the underlying motives for the observed pattern. It is more of
describing what is there than explaining why it is so. These features of content analysis
are what make it ineffective and advisably uneconomical if it is to be employed in
studying cases as the Ethiopian diplomacy and international relations. It might
describe the contents of the diplomatic archives (either declassified or otherwise) but
it might not possibly shed lights on the rational aspects of why those scenarios are the
way they are. Trying to uncover what the contents may bear in various formats may
also be hampered by the availability of materials like the unwillingness of the
authorities to declassify documents, the refusal of the concerned government
bureaucracy to supply with relevant materials, the rejection of senior scholars and
practitioners to provide interviews…etc.
Perhaps content analysis has many advantages as it has many disadvantages. In that
instance, it is our professional duty to fish out of the troubled waters. That is to say,
the fact that there are more merits to it than demerits assures as of its relative
reliability and feasibility. This in turn depends on what we want to achieve by using
this method and on the level of sophistication we are interested to arrive at.

6. Conclusion

In this era of digitalization, where most of the meetings, assemblies, speeches, major
events in the world are being recorded and are accessible to anyone, real-time and near
real-time, the application of content analysis as a research method makes one a
beneficiary in the economical usage of time, sources and research techniques.
In the area of International Relations and Diplomacy, in which nations need revised
and concrete essence of the whole speech by a counterpart or a whole reports by
Intergovernmental Organizations content analysis becomes inherent in every activity
of current day to day diplomacy.
With the enhancement of technology and expansion of knowledge the application of
content analysis is expanding to different disciplines from communication sciences to
diplomacy and international relations to political science to even such medical
disciplines as clinical nursing. The application of computer softwares makes it easy
and verifiable, for this reason it is likely to expand further.
The diplomatic arena is about message and the essence of the message as well as
identifying trends and patterns in the messages and actions of counterparts. For this
reason, more advanced content analysis procedures are likely to become must tools for
the practitioners in the field to cope with the increasing dynamism of international
relations.

9
7. References

Becker, J., & Lißmann, H. J. (1973). Content Analysis - Criticism of Social Science
Method Working Papers on Political Sociology 5. (G. Translate, Trans.)
München.
Budd, R. W., & Thorp, R. K. (1963). An Introduction to Content Analysis. University of
Iowa School of Journalism.
GAO. (1996, September). Content Analysis: A Methodology for Structuring and
Analysing Written Material. United States of America: United States General
Accounting Office.
Hermann, M. G. (2008). Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist
Guide. In A. Klotz, & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative Methods in International
Relations: A Pluralist Guide (pp. 151-167). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research. (Holt, Rinehart , & Winston,
Eds.) New York.
Krippendorff, K. (1993). Conceptual Foundation. In K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis:
An Introduction to Its Methodology (pp. 18-43). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Mayring, P. (2000, June). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal], 1(2).
Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1976). Content analysis. (E. Arnold, Ed.) Research
methods in the social sciences, 132-139.
Orwin, R. (1994). Evaluating Coding Decisions. In H. Cooper, & L. Hedges, The
Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Prasad, B. D. (2008). Content Analysis: A method in Social Science Research.
Treadwell, D. (2014). Content Analysis: Understanding Text and Image in Numbers.
In D. Treadwell, Introducing Communication Research: Paths of Inquiry (pp. 215-
232). SAGE Publications.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: SAGE
Publications.
Woodrum, E. (1984). Mainstreaming content analysis in social science:
Methodological advantage-obstacles and solutions. Social Science Research, 13(2),
1-9.

10