2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-97370-8_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lexicometry: A Quantifying Heuristic for Social Scientists in Discourse Studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
16
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Results of the lexicometrical analysis As stated above, for conducting the qualitative data analysis, we chose the descending hierarchical classification. This lexicometrical method (Scholz, 2019) allowed identification of four categories of discourses (Table 1) which reflected the different dimensions of perceived unfairness of RMP. The statistics showed that 28.8% of the corpus analyzed falls into Category 1.…”
Section: Measurement Scale In the Context Of Hospitalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Results of the lexicometrical analysis As stated above, for conducting the qualitative data analysis, we chose the descending hierarchical classification. This lexicometrical method (Scholz, 2019) allowed identification of four categories of discourses (Table 1) which reflected the different dimensions of perceived unfairness of RMP. The statistics showed that 28.8% of the corpus analyzed falls into Category 1.…”
Section: Measurement Scale In the Context Of Hospitalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The particularity and interest of lexicometry is that after an initial quantitative phase, it introduces a subjective and qualitative phase in the process of data interpretation and contextualization. This inversion of stages provides an ‘epistemological break’ in line with the thinking of Bachelard and Foucault who consider, along with the proponents of the constructivist approach, that the researcher necessarily influences the interpretation of the data and that this must be taken into account (Scholz, 2019, p. 127). According to Wiedemann, “this makes these tools compatible with a range of poststructuralist methodological approaches of text analysis such as (Foucauldian) Discourse Analysis, Historical Semantics, Grounded Theory Methodology, or Frame Analysis” (Wiedemann, 2016, p. 47).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…This is based on both a cultural and an epistemological misunderstanding. The first is due to a late translation of French research, the second to the ambiguity resulting from the negative image of computer‐assisted analysis traditionally associated with the positivist paradigm (Lejeune, 2010; Lejeune & Bénel, 2012;Santiago Delefosse et al, 2017; Scholz, 2019 ; Wiedemann, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations