Keyword analysis has been championed as a methodological option for expanding the insights that can be extracted from qualitative datasets using various properties available in qualitative software. Intrigued by the pioneering applications of Clive Seale and his colleagues in this regard, we conducted keyword analyses for word frequency and “keyness” on a qualitative database of interview transcripts from a study on cancer communication. We then subjected the results from these operations to an in-depth contextual inquiry by resituating word instances within their original speech contexts, finding that most of what had initially appeared as group variations broke down under close analysis. In this article, we illustrate the various threads of analysis, and explain how they unraveled under closer scrutiny. On the basis of this tentative exercise, we conclude that a healthy skepticism for the benefits of keyword analysis within a qualitative investigative process seems warranted.
ArcherD. (Ed.) (2009). What’s in a word-list? Investigating word frequency and keyword extraction. Farnham, VA: Ashgate.
2.
BlismasN. G.DaintyA. R. J. (2003). Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Panacea or paradox?Building Research & Information, 31(6), 455–463. doi:10.1080/0961321031000108816
3.
BondiM.ScottM. (2010). Keyness in texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
4.
BuckmanR. (2006). Cancer is a word, not a sentence: A practical guide to help you through the first few weeks. Toronto, ON, Canada: Key Porter.
GaldasP. M.JohnsonJ. L.PercyM. E.RatnerP. A. (2010). Help seeking for cardiac symptoms: Beyond the masculine–feminine binary. Social Science & Medicine, 71(1), 18–24. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.006
7.
GilbertL. S.JacksonK.di GregorioS. (2014). Tools for analyzing qualitative data: The history and relevance of qualitative data analysis software. In SpectorJ. M.MerrillM. D.ElenJ.BishopM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational and communication technology (pp. 221–236). New York: Springer.
8.
GoodenR. J.WinefieldH. R. (2007). Breast and prostate cancer online discussion boards: A thematic analysis of gender differences and similarities. Journal of Health Psychology, 12(1), 103–114. doi:10.1177/1359105307071744
9.
HahnC. (2008). Doing qualitative research using your computer: A practical guide. London: SAGE.
HumbleA. M. (2012). Qualitative data analysis software: A call for understanding, detail, intentionality, and thoughtfulness. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 4(2), 122–137. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00125.x
12.
JohnsonJ. L.OliffeJ. L.KellyM. T.GaldasP.OgrodnuczukJ. S. (2012). Men’s discourses of help-seeking in the context of depression. Sociology of Health & Illness, 43(3), 345–361. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01372.x
13.
KedrowksiK. MSarowM. S. (2007). Cancer activism: Gender, media, and public policy. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
14.
MortensonW. B.OliffeJ. L. (2009). Mixed methods research in occupational therapy: A survey and critique. Occupation, Participation and Health, 29(1), 14–23. doi:10.3928/15394492-20090101-04
15.
OliffeJ.ThorneS. (2007). Men, masculinity and prostate cancer: Australian and Canadian patient perspectives of communication with male physicians. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 149–161. doi:10.1177/1049732306297695
RichardsL. (2002). Rigorous, rapid, reliable and qualitative? Computing in qualitative method. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26(6), 425–430. doi:10.5993/AJHB.26.6.3
18.
RyanG. W.BernardH. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569
SealeC.2006. Gender accommodation in online cancer support groups. Health, 10(3), 345–360. doi:10.1177/1363459306064495
22.
SealeC. (2010). Using computers to analyse qualitative data. In SilvermanD. (Ed.), Doing qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 257–267). London: SAGE.
23.
SealeC.Charteris-BlackJ. (2008a). The interaction of class and gender in illness narratives. Sociology, 42(3), 453–469. doi:10.1177/0038038508088835
24.
SealeC.Charteris-BlackJ. (2008b). The interaction of age and gender in illness narratives. Ageing and Society, 28(7), 1025–1043. doi:10.1017/S0144686X0800737X
25.
SealeC.Charteris-BlackJ.MacFarlaneA.McPhersonA. (2010). Interviews and Internet forums: A comparison of two sources of qualitative data. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 595–606. doi:10.1177/1049732309354094
26.
SealeC.ZeiblandS.Charteris-BlackJ. (2006). Gender, cancer experience and Internet use: A comparative keyword analysis of interviews and online cancer support groups. Social Science & Medicine, 62(10), 2577–2590. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.016.
27.
StajduharK. I.ThorneS. E.McGuinessL.Kim-SingC. (2010). Patient perceptions of helpful communication in the context of advanced cancer. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 2039–2047. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03158.x
28.
ThorneS.ArmstrongE.-A.HarrisS. R.HislopT. G.Kim-SingC.OglovV.. . . StajduharK. I. (2009). Patient real-time and 12-month retrospective perceptions of difficult communications in the cancer diagnostic period. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 1383–1394. doi:10.1177/1049732309348382
29.
ThorneS.OliffeJ.Kim-SingC.HislopT. G.StajduharK.HarrisS. R.. . . OglovV. (2010). Helpful communications during the diagnostic period: An interpretive description of patient preferences. European Journal of Cancer Care, 19, 746–754. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2354.2009.01125.x
30.
ThorneS.StadjuharK. (2012). Patient perceptions of communications on the threshold of cancer survivorship: Implications for provider responses. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 6(2), 229–237. doi:10.1007/s11764-012-0216-z
