Last Updated on October 12, 2026 by Karl Thompson
Content analysis is a method of analysing media content, or any other documents, to find out what they contain and how they represent the world. In brief:
- There are two main types: formal (quantitative) content analysis, which counts how often certain features appear, and qualitative content analysis, which interprets the meaning of media content through thematic and textual analysis.
- Formal content analysis is reliable, quick and minimises researcher bias, but counting alone tells you nothing about context or meaning.
- Qualitative content analysis examines the full context of media content, but it depends on the researcher’s interpretation and lacks objectivity.
This post looks at the advantages and disadvantages of both types. Content analysis is part of the research methods topic in AQA A-level sociology, mainly on Paper 3, and is also used throughout the media option.
NB: The AQA-approved textbooks expect students to know about content analysis of film, TV and print media, not online media such as websites, social media or dating sites. So this post focuses on “traditional media” rather than “new media”. Don’t shoot the messenger: AQA is stuck in the dark ages. For online media, see the internet as an object of content analysis.
What is content analysis in sociology?
Content analysis is a method for analysing the content of documents, especially media documents such as newspapers, TV programmes, films, magazines and adverts. The researcher reads, watches or listens to the material systematically and records what it contains, either by counting features (formal content analysis) or by interpreting their meaning (qualitative content analysis).
It is a type of secondary research, because the researcher analyses material that someone else produced. See secondary qualitative data in sociology for documents more generally.
Why sociologists study the mass media
Mass media resources are widely used in social research. Sociologists are mainly interested in the media as an object of study, rather than as a source of information about society.
Entertainment sources such as films, TV shows and special-interest magazines can’t be expected to give a true picture of society. What they can tell us is what producers think their audiences want, and how different social groups are represented, including how they are distorted and stereotyped. For example, violent crime is heavily over-represented in crime dramas, even though most crime is non-violent.
The news is also of interest to sociologists, because it is a social construction. What makes the news reflects the selection decisions of journalists and editors, and their values and political views.
There are two main types of content analysis: formal (quantitative) content analysis and qualitative content analysis.
Formal (quantitative) content analysis
Formal content analysis is a quantitative approach. The researcher develops a classification system, sometimes called a coding schedule, which identifies the key features of the media content being studied, and then counts how often each feature occurs.
The simplest form of formal content analysis is simply counting words or phrases. This can now be done on millions of scanned books in Google’s database.
More complex forms of content analysis involve broader categories. Examples include counting which types of crime are reported in the news, how much space is given to major news categories such as entertainment, sport and politics, or analysing pictures, such as how often men and women are shown in particular roles.
The strengths and limitations of formal content analysis
Strengths
- Minimises researcher bias. The researcher sets out the categories in advance and simply counts, which leaves less room for their own views to shape the findings.
- Good reliability. Another researcher using the same coding schedule on the same material should get the same results.
- Quicker than qualitative approaches, so large samples of media content can be analysed.
- Shows trends. Because it produces numbers, formal content analysis can show how media content changes over time, or compare different newspapers or channels.
- Non-reactive. The material already exists, so the researcher can’t influence it.
Limitations
- Broader categories can be interpreted differently. Deciding whether a news story counts as “politics” or “crime”, or whether an image is “stereotypical”, involves judgement, so different researchers may code the same content differently.
- Counting tells you nothing about context or meaning. Knowing how often a word or image appears says nothing about the wider meaning of the words or images, or about how audiences interpret them.
Qualitative content analysis: thematic and textual analysis
Qualitative content analysis looks at the meaning of media content rather than counting it. There are two main types.
Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis investigates the intentions behind the production of media documents, by examining a particular area of reporting in detail.
For example, Soothill and Walby (1991) studied newspaper reporting of sex crime. They found that reporting stressed the danger of rape in public places and the pathology of individual rapists. It ignored rape by partners and friends, and the wider context of patriarchal power.
Textual analysis
Textual analysis examines how words are linked together to encourage readers to adopt a particular view.
For example, the Glasgow University Media Group’s studies of TV news coverage of industrial disputes found that workers were typically described as “demanding” while management “offered”, language which made workers appear unreasonable.
Textual analysis also uses semiology (also called semiotics), which is the analysis of signs and symbols, such as the images, colours and camera angles used to convey a message.
The strengths and limitations of qualitative content analysis
Strengths
- Full context. It allows the full context of media reporting to be examined, giving a fuller description of what the media portray and how.
- Meaning. It can uncover the hidden messages in media content, such as how language and images frame a story.
Limitations
- Lacks objectivity. Both thematic and textual analysis depend on the researcher’s own interpretation, and another researcher might read the same content differently.
- Selective samples. Critics argue that researchers may select samples of media content that fit their own views.
- Hard to generalise. Detailed analysis is time-consuming, which makes it difficult to apply across a wide range of texts.
- Says nothing about audiences. Like formal content analysis, it tells us what the media contain, not how audiences actually interpret it.
Formal and qualitative content analysis compared
| Formal (quantitative) | Qualitative (thematic and textual) | |
|---|---|---|
| What it does | Counts how often features occur | Interprets meaning and context |
| Main strength | Reliable; minimises researcher bias; quick | Full context; uncovers hidden meanings |
| Main limitation | Ignores context and meaning | Lacks objectivity; depends on interpretation |
| Preferred by | Positivists | Interpretivists |
| Neither tells us | how audiences actually interpret the media |
Theory and Methods revision bundle
If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my Theory and Methods revision bundle, which contains the following:
Signposting and related posts
This post has been written primarily for students studying the research methods topic, as part of the AQA’s A-Level Sociology course.
Content analysis is one way of analysing secondary qualitative data. For online media specifically, see the internet as an object of content analysis.
For secondary data in general, see the strengths and limitations of secondary data.
For more detailed posts on research methods, please see my page on research methods.
Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com