Qualitative content analysis – according to Mayring or Kuckartz?

If you look into the method of qualitative content analysis, you are likely to come across two names: Philipp Mayring and Udo Kuckartz. Both authors have published established and well-received papers on qualitative content analysis. The methodological approaches differ in some respects, but also show great similarities. In this article, we will compare the two approaches and highlight some differences, hoping to provide some guidance for those who are wondering which approach is best to follow.
For a better understanding of this article, you should ideally already have a rough idea of the qualitative content analysis method. If not, you can read about this here in our practice book or here as an abridged version.
Disclaimer before the start: We are “Kuckartz-socialized”, having studied and completed our doctorates under Kuckartz in Marburg. I therefore have a very clear bias here and report from experiences in which we have worked intensively with and according to Udo Kuckartz’s approach. Nevertheless, I am convinced that we can name a few distinguishing criteria from our experience that can provide orientation for getting started:
Qualitative content analysis! But which one?
There is actually not THE qualitative content analysis, but many variants of it. There is a wide range of variations, some of which differ significantly from the approaches of Mayring and Kuckartz. So to reduce the discussion to a question of “Mayring or Kuckartz” is a bit like limiting the choice on the wine shelf to Riesling and Silvaner. And yet these two approaches are didactically very well suited to outlining different forms of qualitative content analysis.
If you would like to delve deeper into this subject and find a more methodologically sound approach, we recommend the publications of Margrit Schreier are highly recommended. Schreier does not formulate his own process model, but provides an overview of the various procedures that can be used to design the steps of a qualitative content analysis to suit the object of investigation. It establishes the image of a “toolbox”, which we find extremely appealing. However, there is also a big catch: the toolbox is helpful and very easy to implement if you know what you want to pay attention to and what pitfalls the respective procedure may entail.
If you are still at the very beginning and want to learn qualitative content analysis, you first need an overview and some very concrete points of reference. This is offered by Mayring and Kuckartz, who have both developed very specific process models for content analysis. I will deliberately make the two models more concise and avoid precision and detail in favor of clarity with “didactic vagueness”.
Mayring the pioneer and “classic”
Mayring’s work has established and popularized qualitative content analysis in the German-speaking world. His book, published in 1982, is indisputably regarded as a “classic” of qualitative content analysis and is now available in its 12th edition.
Mayring describes qualitative content analysis in a total of eight different process models. Mayring describes methods in which categories are developed on the basis of theory. You therefore need a theoretical concept that you can refer to when formulating categories. Since the 6th edition, Mayring has added a technique for inductive (material-oriented) categorization. Subcategories are identified from the material and then formulated in terms of theory.
Mayring has drawn up very detailed rules of interpretation for each of the process models. His “three-step” of paraphrasing, generalization and reduction in inductive category formation is very popular. Intercoder agreement is named as an important quality criterion. This value indicates how consistently different people code the same material with the same code system. The further possibilities of analyzing the coded material – beyond structuring – are only touched on by Mayring; here a frequency analysis of the answers is described centrally.
So much for the short version.
Kuckartz’s “qualitative modernization”
Kuckartz presented his methodological elaboration almost exactly 30 years after Mayring’s first publication – although he had already published content-analytical works before. Kuckartz only describes three basic process models. Variations of this are explicitly mentioned, but not formulated as separate models. There are far fewer explicitly formulated rules here. I haven’t really counted it, but I’m sure: Kuckartz often uses open formulations such as “can”, “could” or even “depends on”. The different choice of words is also noticeable in other places: while Mayring develops “rules of interpretation” in the indicative, Kuckartz uses the term “guidelines”, often in the subjunctive. So Kuckartz’s wording is not so “strict” overall.
Kuckartz takes a critical look at some points of Mayring’s model. I would like to pick out three points as examples: The inductive category formation, the case reference and the quality criteria.
Kuckartz is critical of the use of inter-coder agreement as a quality criterion for qualitative content analysis. He even devotes an entire chapter to this coefficient in order to show, by way of example, how problematic and demanding it is to calculate such a value for qualitative data. Kuckartz relies here more on criteria that originate from reconstructive social research, such as consensual coding, reliability and transferability.
Kuckartz also critically describes the inductive formation of categories through paraphrasing, which is explicitly theory-based in Mayring’s work. Paraphrasing in particular is not necessarily helpful in creating consistent inductive categories. Mayring describes paraphrasing as a way of deriving comprehensible categories from the original material. Kuckartz takes a critical view of this, as it can quickly lead to questionable content that may not do justice to the original text. Kuckartz prefers to work directly with the unchanged text passage. Here it seems plausible to assume that Kuckartz, as the inventor of the QDA software MAXQDA, believes that the software-supported analysis guarantees the traceability of the work steps and that the intermediate step of paraphrasing can thus be skipped. Overall, Kuckartz is much more open when it comes to the methods for forming inductive categories and also recommends, for example, the use of other methods such as of grounded theory.
And finally, it is important to Kuckartz that the case, i.e. the interview “as a whole”, including the ambiguities and contradictions, is considered first. Mayring also talks about shedding light on the context and the context in which the interview was conducted, but has not described any more precise steps for this. Kuckartz, on the other hand, explains a separate step “initiating text work” in more detail in his model: A separate work step in which the interview is first summarized on a content level and special features in the course of the interview are recorded.
Our classification
Mayring’s very structured and theory-led approach, with its many rules of interpretation, seems to have the advantage of providing clear guidance. However, these seem very difficult to apply to our own projects without experience. Many rules stand for themselves and are not explained in detail. E.g. Does rule E1.1 “Identify the lexicons and grammars relevant to the linguistic and socio-cultural background” describe the following? Not everyone will be able to get to grips with it straight away, because they may lack the (linguistic) scientific prerequisites. Therefore, in our view, despite the detailed description of the rules of interpretation, (too) many questions remain unanswered.
Kuckartz seems to us to be more easily accessible and better suited for getting an idea of the facets of the qualitative content analysis process. Kuckartz’s much more open approach also appears to be more modern and more oriented towards the methods of qualitative procedures and the use of QDA software.
To put it in a nutshell, I’ll sum it up with a shortened formula:
“Mayring is more theory-driven and structured, Kuckatz is more material-oriented and open.”
This characterization is supported by the fact that Mayring always focuses on the theoretical reference, while Kuckartz argues for an even clearer qualitative orientation of the content analysis, e.g. through the inclusion of initiating text work or methods of grounded theory methodology. Nevertheless, Kuckartz also remains explicitly open to using quantitative methods in the analysis.
This should not obscure the fact that no matter which approach you choose, you will – almost inevitably – always encounter open questions, tricky decisions or unclear definitions in a qualitative content analysis. This challenge will be encountered in all qualitative methods. This is also what the qualitative research process is all about.
Further articles:
Qualitative content analysis toolbox – checklist of methodological decisions
Qualitative content analysis basics: These three simple elements belong in a results report.
You can find further citable assistance in our free practical book(PDF download)