Content analysis of visual images

Anu

Content Analysis
} } } }

An empirical (observational) and objective procedure Quantifying recorded audio visual(including verbal) Quantitative Analysis Using reliable and explicitly defined categories(values on independent variables) Deals with one or more defined areas of representation, periods or types of images unlike semiotics and psychoanalysis

} } } } }

Material analyzed visuals , verbal, graphic, oral indeed any kind of meaningful information To analyze we break down into constituent parts variables and values We need precise hypotheses and clearly defined concepts Kinds of hypotheses is comparative Eg: representation of women and men in ad explicit hypothesis here can be : women will be depicted in fewer outdoor situations than men in both kinds of magazines

variables
}

} } } }

Visual or verbal representations differ from each other in many ways on many dimensions or qualities Content variable is any such dimension (size, color, range, position on a page or in a news bulletin) Or the range of options that could be substituted (male/female ; child/adult) Or alternate settings (kitchen, bathroom, street, shops..) Judge the manifested content of the image or text

Values
} } } }

Elements under variables with same logic Elements could be substituted for each other belong to the same class Values each should be mutually exclusive and exhaustive Exclusive any observed element of representation can only be classified into one value on each variable Exhaustive value should cover all the possible categorizations on the respective variable

Variables Gender Role Setting Size

Values Male

House duties Nurse

Domestic

Full Page

Female

Business Executives Flight attendant Teacher

Public

Half full page

More than half page Double page

------------

Riaz

Quantitative results: Comparisons & Cross - tabulations

} 

Content analysis classifies extensive fields of representation in quantitative terms. The kind of hypotheses which such quantification helps to test are those which compare one field of representation with another example : comparisons between mens and womens magazine advertisements in terms of visual representations of gender roles. The table was originally published with relevant comparison tables showing how other television channels prioritized their respective agendas during the same period.

  

 

Groups of males or females have been analyzed according to the visual modality. Modality here refers to the truth value or credibility of statements about the world. (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996 ) these authors point out that visual images also represent people, places and things as though they are real.. Or they are imaginings, fantasies etc. Males are more likely than females to be shown in factual style advertisements. Most magazine advertisements adopt a standard modality.

RELIABILITY


Reliability refer to the degree of consistency shown by one or more coders in classifying content according to defined values on specific variables. Reliability can be demonstrated by assessing the correlation between judgments of the same sample of relevant items made by different coders or by one coder on different occasions Reliability is a simple but important concept. It can be thought of measuring any quality does not yield the same value each time it is applied to a given object, then it is not literally a tool in the physical sense, it is a method of classification and quantification, so its definitions must be precise enough to be used reliably.

To achieve high levels of reliability :



Define the variables and values clearly and precisely and ensure that all coders understand these definitions in the same way. Train the coders in applying the defined criteria for each variable and value.

Per cent agreement



Simply calculate how frequently two coders agree their judgements,ensuring that they both tested on the same large number of items. The researcher might choose not to employ the most aberrant coder in the next stages of the research project, so that the average reliability was higher however the level of reliability is below what is usually recommended 0.9 or 90 %. With 4 coders, such an index is rather artificial. It assumes that one coder is the norm and averages the others respective agreement with this norm.

Two technical point  A high frequency of items classified as miscellaneous or other will spuriously inflate the apparent level of reliability. Less than ten per cent of iteams should fall into this category on any variable. Second  The fewer values there are on a given variable, the more likely there is to be agreement between coders which is based on chance rather then on similar judgement according to the definition. So binary or tripartite classifications would need to be close to 100 per cent reliable.

More sensitive measure of reliability



The index the fact that two codes may agree in their judgments purely by chance a better index has become more widely used. Scott 1955 he has proposed one of several more subtle formulae for assessing reliability by taking account of chance agreements based on the number of values distinguished in a given content analysis : pi pi =(per cent observed expected agreement. agreement)(per cent

The researcher can state the expected percentage for all values on all variables in advance of the coders judgments being made.

If two coders classifying a sample of 100 images depicting occupational roles in advertisements, for instance agreed on 95 % of cases then the reliability index would be (0.950.205)/(1.00-0.205) = 0.94 the pi value). A pi value of at least 0.80 should be obtained. If this is not achieved in a pilot trial, the researcher should re-train coders and / or redefine values and re-test the degree of reliability.

Limitation and Extension



The main limitation of quantitative content analysis concern the relatively un-theorized concept of messages, texts or manifest content that it claims to analyze objectively and then to quantify. The categories of visual 'content which are most frequently quantified in media research arise from commonsense social categories such a roles depicted 'settings shown, gender and age of represented participants in images. Such variables are not defined within any particular theoretical context which analyses visual semiotic dimensions of texts That is, the framing, visual 'angles', scale of photographic 'shot', and so on, that are part of the discourse of visual analysis are Seldom incorporated into content analysis

The cultural complexity of visually coded texts means that either only the most simplistic, socially conventional categories can be studied , or content analysis imports tendentious or highly interpreted abstractions in to its ostensibly 'objective definitions of variables and/or values. The result is that coding categories used in research into this question were frequently moralistic and de contextualized. In short, content analysis cannot be used as though it reflects un problematically or a-theoretically the social or ideological world outside the particular context of the medium studied. Content analysis cannot be easily compared with some assumed 'reality 'by which to make claims of 'bias or 'negative , let alone 'true' or 'false', representation.

VALIDITY : GOING BEYOND THE DATA

To conduct a content analysis is to try to describe salient aspects of how a group of texts represents some kinds of people ,processes, events, and/or interrelationships between or amongst these. However, the explicit definition and quantification that content analysis involves are no guarantee, in themselves, that one can make valid inferences from the data yielded by such an empirical procedure . any form of visual analysis, is the degree to which the resulting statements about the field analysed can be said to describe features that are, in fact, semantically significant for viewers/spectators/'readers of the images.

 

The criticism that is most frequently leveled against content analysis is that the variables/values defined are somehow only spuriously objective. It is claimed that they are as subjective as any semantic variables despite being 'measured or at least counted. However, such a criticism can be turned around, to point to the fact that not only content analysis but all visual or verbal semiotics formal and informal, are only as valid as the explicitness and reliability of their respective theoretical concepts. Content analysis by itself, does not demonstrate how viewers understand or value what they see or hear. Still, content analysis shows what is given priority or salience and what is not. It can show which images are connected with which, who is given publicity and how, as well as which agendas are 'run by particular media.

Validity refers to the concept of how well a system of analysis actually measures what it purports to measure. Valid inferences from a particular content analysis, given this definition, will reflect the Degree of reliability in the coding procedures, the precision and clarity of definitions adopted and the adequacy of the theoretical concepts on which the coding criteria are based. Validity refers to the confidence one can have in the results showing that the stated theoretical concepts offer a discriminating description of the field being analyzed.

As we have seen, Content analysis provides a quantified dimensional description of fields of representation .The methodology can be used to provide a background map of a domain of visual representation. Having conducted a content analysis the researcher can then interpret the images or the imagery in qualitative ways. Typical or salient examples can be further analyzed to fill out the qualitative description of 'what the data mean'. So, having shown how frequently and in what contexts, say, images of passive females occur, a Researcher might discuss the psychoanalytic or ideological significance of the images in terms of metaphors, photographic style, historical or social context . ------------

Kevin

Eg : Testing Semiotic Hypothesis

} } }

} }

Images carry connotations and invite individual reminiscence Experiential possibilities cannot be defined and quantified reliably Yet dimensions of interactive ( how viewer is invited to relate to an image) and of textual meaning (how images are formed or balanced) can be defined and their frequency counted Manifested content of images through content analysis dissects and counts unambiguously definable aspects can be quantified Involves empirical (observational) methodology Specified variables and values used to code based on partial / small scale content analysis

Need of partial or small scale content - Analysis

1.

2.

3.

Comparative hypothesis can be formulated and tested using reliable categories relating to the semiotics of visual images Content Analysis can be given by precise definition to theoretical concepts(here semiotics) Objective criteria (unambiguously to be unambiguously) specified for categorizing visual material.

Partial content Analysis : Social Science format

1. 2. 3.

Hypothesis Procedure or method Results and Discussions

Jun 2010

July 2010

Aug 2010

Sep 2010

Oct 2010

Nov 2010

Dec 2010

Jan 2011

1. Hypotheses
} }

} } } } }

None of the models are in intimate distance Models on the cover pages of Jan 2010, Aug 2010, Sep 2010, Nov 2010 seems to be in far personal distance Models on the cover pages of Dec 2010 and January 2011 seems to be in far personal distance Modality of the images seems to be high All the models seems to have almost same age Model on the cover page of July 2010 seems to be in close social distance In few models seems to cover the logo / title of the magazine

2.Procedure / method
Variable 1. Social Distance 1.1 intimate 1.2 close personal 1.3 far personal 1.4 close social 1.5 far social 1.6 public 2.1 high 2.2 medium 2.3 low 3.1 offer- ideal (looking away from viewer) 3.2 demand/affiliation (equality) (looks at viewer, directly, smiling) 3.3 Demand/submission(looks down at viewer, mot smiling) 3.4 Demand / seduction (looks at viewer, head canted, smiling or pouting) 3.5 others values

2. Modality

3. Behavior

3. Results and Analysis

1.Social Distance 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

1 4 2 1 8

2. Modality

3. Behavior

1 3 4

4. Discussion
}

The occlusion / or covering the title of the magazine happens in almost random manner. It clearly covers the title on Jan 2010, July 2010, Sep 2010, Oct 2010, Jan 2011editions showing its a random pick rather than a shift itself. The visuals are put in a very constructed and beyond the reality with studio lighting and the models seems to be more perfect than normal people(reality) The poses of models other than the one in Jan 2010 seems to have powerless poses and increases the tenderness in women making the viewer having more power on them. These women images of almost same age or in same age group(20-30) shows that the magazine aims at young people especially youth and women (target audience)