@article {27038,
	title = {Meaning multiplicity and valid disagreement in textual measurement: A plea for a revised notion of reliability},
	journal = {Studies in Communication and Media},
	volume = {12},
	number = {4},
	year = {2023},
	pages = {305-326},
	abstract = {In quantitative content analysis, conventional wisdom holds that reliability, operationalized as agreement, is a necessary precondition for validity. Underlying this view is the assumption that there is a definite, unique way\&nbsp;to correctly classify any instance of a measured variable. In this intervention, we argue that there are textual\&nbsp;ambiguities that cause disagreement in classification that is not measurement error, but reflects true\&nbsp;properties of the classified text. We introduce a notion of valid disagreement, a form of replicable disagreement\&nbsp;that must be distinguished from replication failures that threaten reliability. We distinguish three key forms of\&nbsp;meaning multiplicity that result in valid disagreement {\textendash} ambiguity due to under-specification, polysemy due to excessive information, and interchangeability of classification choices {\textendash} that are widespread in textual analysis,\&nbsp;yet defy treatment within the confines of the existing content-analytic toolbox. Discussing implications, we\&nbsp;present strategies for addressing valid disagreement in content analysis.},
	url = {https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/de/10.5771/2192-4007-2023-4-305/meaning-multiplicity-and-valid-disagreement-in-textual-measurement-a-plea-for-a-revised-notion-of-reliability-jahrgang-12-2023-heft-4?page=1},
	author = {Baden, Christian and Boxman-Shabtai, Lillian and Keren Tenenboim-Weinblatt and Maximilian Overbeck and Tali Aharoni}
}
