Commonalities, differences and limitations of text analysis software: the results of a review
Contributor(s)
Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen -ZUMA-Keywords
Sozialwissenschaften, SoziologieSocial sciences, sociology, anthropology
Forschungsarten der Sozialforschung
Erhebungstechniken und Analysetechniken der Sozialwissenschaften
Methods and Techniques of Data Collection and Data Analysis, Statistical Methods, Computer Methods
Research Design
electronic data processing
methodology
efficiency
analysis
language
software
effectiveness
text processing
text analysis
technology
Effizienz
Methodologie
EDV
Software
Effektivität
Textanalyse
Textverarbeitung
Sprache
Analyse
Technologie
descriptive study
development of methods
basic research
documentation
Grundlagenforschung
deskriptive Studie
Dokumentation
Methodenentwicklung
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/20045Abstract
Das Arbeitspapier diskutiert einerseits einige Tendenzen in der Technologie der Softwareentwicklung von Textanalysen und zum anderen die Schwerpunkte, wo in diesem Bereich weitere Entwicklung und Forschung erforderlich ist. Die Basis der Diskussion bildet ein Review über 15 Softwareprogramme. Auf die folgenden Programme wird detaillierter eingegangen: AQUAD; Atlas.ti; COAN; code-A-Text; DICTION; Dimap-MCCA, HyperRESEAERCH; Keds; Nud*IST; QED; TATOE; Textpack; TextSmart; WinMAXpro und WordState. Die Autorinnen erörtern die Methodologie und die Auswahlkriterien, warum sie welche Programme für welche Forschungszwecken am tauglichsten halten. (pre)'This paper discusses on the one hand the tendencies in functionality and technology of software for text analysis and reflects, on the other hand, on the areas where more development is needed. The basis for this discussion forms a comprehensive review (Alexa & Zuell, in press) of fifteen currently available software for text analysis. In the review each software package, i.e. AQUAD, ATLAS.ti, CoAN, Code-A-Text, DICTION, DMIAP-MCCA, HyperRESEARCH, KEDS, NUD-IST, QED, TATOE, TEXTPACK, TextSmart, WinMAXpro, and WordStat, was presented in a detailed and extensive manner. In this paper we shall only delineate our methodology and criteria for selecting which programs to review and concentrate on discussing the types of support the selected programs offer, the commonalities and differences of their functionality, point to some of their shortcomings and put forward suggestions for future development.' (author's abstract)|
Date
2010-11-04Type
ArbeitspapierIdentifier
oai:gesis.izsoz.de:document/20045http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/20045
urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-200454