Methodological Issues in the Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts

By Liam Rourke, Terry Anderson, D. Randy Garrison, Walter Archer. 2007

778 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eea3b050913e1623610a45172ddfedecb811cfac

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Learning in Communities of Inquiry: A Review of the Literature (2009, background): “Schrire (2006) categorizes students' contributions to online forums in order to study learning processes, which is not the focus of this study. Kanuka (2002) examined the influence of five online, communicative activities on student learning.”
ONLINE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY REVIEW: SOCIAL, COGNITIVE, AND TEACHING PRESENCE ISSUES (2019, background): “While there has been some discussion around this issue [8, 46, 47] it remains a crucial but challenging decision.”
Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review (2006, background): “Percent agreement is considered an overly liberal index by some researchers, and the indices which do account for chance agreement, such as Krippendorﬀ (cid:1) s alpha, are considered overly conservative and often too restrictive (Lombard et al., 2002; Rourke et al., 2001).”
ASSESSING TEACHING PRESENCE IN A COMPUTER CONFERENCING CONTEXT (2019, methodology): “Earlier papers have discussed methodology of transcript analysis [3], cognitive presence [4], and social presence in computer conferencing [5,6].”
Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups (2006, background): “According to Rourke et al. (2001) this results in the objective identification of all units of analysis.”
Pets in danger: exploring the link between domestic violence and animal abuse (2017, unknown): “This method of calculating percentage agreement is considered an important criterion for assessing the value and rigour of qualitative research (e.g. Holsti, 1969; Mays & Pope, 1995; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2007).”
Content analysis: What are they talking about? (2006, unknown): “A threshold for the proportion agreement reliability of segmentation does not exist in CSCL research nor in the domain of content analysis (see Neuendorf, 2002; Ri V e, Lacy, & Fico, 1998; Rourke et al., 2001).”
Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions (2007, background): “Although there has been some discussion around this issue (Fahy, 2001; Garrison et al., 2006; Rourke et al., 2001), this is an important decision from a research perspective.”
Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability (2006, unknown): “When these issues are addressed, good reliability measures have been achieved (e.g., Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001; Celetin, unpublished manuscript; McKlin, Harmon, Evans, & Jones, 2002; Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, & Chang, 2003; Rourke et al., 2001; Vaughan, 2004).”
A Blockchain Research Framework (2017, methodology): “Following Morris (1994) ﬁve steps, at ﬁrst the singular studies were determined as the unit of analysis, which constitute the fragments in which the data was broken down to for the coding process (Rourke et al. 2001).”