Page 118 - Encyclopedia of Nursing Research

ConTEnT AnALYSIS n 85

are often formed to propose standards and adequate statistical power to compare the
to oversee the work on specific aspects of effects of treatment on the study outcomes.
the study. For example, the subcommittees It may be expected that consortial C
bring proposals for publications and presen- research will increase as nursing researchers
tations, participant safety and end points, or do more experimental research. Another fac-
clinical aspects before the steering committee tor that may promote consortial research in
for approval. The degree to which the steer- nursing is the changing health care system.
ing committee is involved in development As health care systems increase the number
of protocols, questionnaires, and so forth, as of contractual arrangements in attempts to
opposed to approving those developed by the provide cost-effective, integrated care across
coordinating center, varies by study and the the continuum of patient needs, consortial
reason the consortium was created. research is likely to become more common.
In a consortium formed primarily for
the purpose of sharing resources, mentor- Barbara Valanis
ing junior researchers, replicating a previous
study, or disseminating results, the steering
committee may be composed of representa-
tives appointed by each participating insti- Content analysis
tution. In such cases, the steering committee
often serves the purpose of setting priorities
for the activities of the consortium. Funding Content analysis is a data analysis tech-
of studies conducted by a consortium may nique that is commonly used in qualitative
take several forms. When external funding is research, which focuses on structuring par-
involved, the two most common types are (a) ticular topics or domains of interest from
providing one large grant to a coordinating unstructured data. It is a time-consuming
center, which then subcontracts with each process that involves organizing, identifying,
clinical site, and (b) providing individual coding, and making categories from patterns
grants to each participating institution with of data that are reflective of the topics. The
a separate grant to the coordinating center. topics or domains of interest are generated
The first approach gives the coordinating by the researcher on the basis of data derived
center budgetary leverage when a site is not from collection source and are also often
performing up to par. This is an advantage referred to as category labels. Historically,
for involving a new site or increasing the early content analysis focused on linguistic
number of subjects enrolled at existing sites and observational data. The earlier or clas-
by redistributing funds from the nonper- sic content analysis included techniques for
forming site. The second approach requires reducing texts to a unit-by-variable matrix
that each site meet the commitments for the and then analyzing the matrix quantitatively
good of the overall study. A third model, to test hypotheses (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
used when external funding is not available, In addition to information derived from
shares the cost of the research among partici- interviews and casual or structured observa-
pating institutions within the consortium. tions, researchers may analyze written text
In medical treatment research and pub- from special documents, archival records,
lic health prevention research, consortial field logs, and diaries or may develop
arrangements have been a preferred struc- schemes to analyze visual data from pictures
ture for large randomized trials that must or videotapes.
recruit substantial populations in a rela- Content analysis begins with reading
tively short time, provide intervention, and the text or written transcription of an inter-
have sufficient follow-up time to generate view, notes from an observation, or some