Three Gaps in Computational Text Analysis Methods for Social Sciences: A Research Agenda
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 27 December 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Communication Methods and Measures
- Vol. 16 (1) , 1-18
Abstract
We identify three gaps that limit the utility and obstruct the progress of computational text analysis methods (CTAM) for social science research. First, we contend that CTAM development has prioritized technological over validity concerns, giving limited attention to the operationalization of social scientific measurements. Second, we identify a mismatch between CTAMs’ focus on extracting specific contents and document-level patterns, and social science researchers’ need for measuring multiple, often complex contents in the text. Third, we argue that the dominance of English language tools depresses comparative research and inclusivity toward scholarly communities examining languages other than English. We substantiate our claims by drawing upon a broad review of methodological work in the computational social sciences, as well as an inventory of leading research publications using quantitative textual analysis. Subsequently, we discuss implications of these three gaps for social scientists’ uneven uptake of CTAM, as well as the field of computational social science text research as a whole. Finally, we propose a research agenda intended to bridge the identified gaps and improve the validity, utility, and inclusiveness of CTAM.Keywords
Funding Information
- Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (951832)
This publication has 64 references indexed in Scilit:
- Parsing Morphologically Rich Languages: Introduction to the Special IssueComputational Linguistics, 2013
- False-Positive PsychologyPsychological Science, 2011
- Finding Frames: Comparing Two Methods of Frame AnalysisCommunication Methods and Measures, 2011
- Sentiment strength detection in short informal textJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010
- Most people are not WEIRDNature, 2010
- News Frames Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis of Frames Employed in Terrorism Coverage in U.S. and U.K. NewspapersThe International Journal of Press/Politics, 2008
- The Subjective Precision of Computers: A Methodological Comparison with Human Coding in Content AnalysisJournalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2006
- Evaluating WordNet-based Measures of Lexical Semantic RelatednessComputational Linguistics, 2006
- Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many GuisesReview of General Psychology, 1998
- Structures of News in the Press1985