Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis

TLDR

Applied communication research often lacks a guiding theory, making validity and reliability considerations more complex. The essay argues that validity and reliability should be conceptualized differently across content types and theory uses, and that content analyses need not be limited to theory‑based coding schemes. The authors distinguish between manifest and latent content (pattern and projective) to guide analysis. Clarity on content type and theory role enables researchers to choose appropriate strategies for demonstrating validity and reliability.

Abstract

Abstract The central thesis in this essay is that validity and reliability should be conceptualized differently across the various forms of content and the various uses of theory. This is especially true with applied communication research where a theory is not always available to guide the design. A distinction needs to made between manifest and latent (pattern and projective) content. Also, we argue that content analyses need not be limited to theory‐based coding schemes and standards set by experts. When researchers are clear about what kind of content they want to analyze and the role of theory in their studies, they are in a better position to select the most appropriate strategies for demonstrating validity and reliability.