I am not an expert but I have been doing some reading on this issue lately. First there's may be a misconception in the use of the word worldview, as this word should refer to the researcher and not the methodology, as I understand it.

The use of qualitative content analysis (CA) stems from a naturalistic approach, because meaning is co-constructed as Hsieh and Shannon (2005) have pointed out.

The difficulty in a finding a philosophical "clear cut" stance of CA is due to the flexibility of the methodology. However, if the researcher chooses one method over another it can be assumed that the researcher is approaching an issue or conducting an investigation based on one of the two worldviews mentioned.

I want to add something to this discussion even though you did not ask for this in your question.

If both of these methodologies were to be used concurrently in the same study, the researchers' worldview will depend on the objective of the study. IF the study is looking to find an implementation or improve as a result of the findings of the study then it follows that the researcher is approaching the issue from a pragmatic worldview. Similarly, the combination of the two methodologies seek to have a better perspective of an issue by implementing qualitative and quantiative CA while giving equal importance to every datum then it may follow that the researcher is a approaching an investigation from a critical realism worldview or even a dialectic worldview.

For more info on the last paragraph please read (Leung, & Chung, 2019; Shannon-Baker, 2016)

I hope this helps. Please dig more into this issue and let me know of you find more detailed information.

Leung D.Y., Chung B.P.M. (2019) Content Analysis: Using Critical Realism to Extend Its Utility. In: Liamputtong P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore.

Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 10(4), 319-334.

traditional content analysis emanates from positivism but qualitative content analysis from constructivism. Meaning making is the vital emphasis in the latest approach.

Qualitative research is based on empirism. It looks how people construct meaning - things they really do and so uses empirical data.

Constructivism as the root of the qualitative approach adds the fact that everything here is true within a context (or system). In cultural studies this goes in line with the criterium of indexicality (meaning depends on context).

Lit: (german, sorry) Lamnek, Qualitative Sozialforschung, 2005 (qualitativ social research)

I'm not sure why your are so concerned about worldview. Qualitative and qualitative content analysis typically try to answer different questions with different methods -- isn't that enough?

Dear unknown interrogator!

Thanks you for your serious question.

Content analysis (CA) as a research method is (like any scientific method) more or less explicitly embedded in a theoretical perspective (JANOWITZ 1968: 648; see KRIPPENDORFF 2013: 24-48; BAUERNSCHMIDT 2020) – if we are unaware of such perspectives and their key assumptions, we are working scientifically naïve.

This caveat has far-reaching implications for our view of the subject matter of CA (only manifest content or latent content, too – What is “content” anyway? (cf. GERBNER 1964: 477; ‘discontent analysis’), our way we ask research questions (“Why?” or “How?”), the procedures we use to gain knowledge (deductive-nomological or inductive-hermeneutical or both within a mixed-methods framework) and the techniques we employ for colleting, analyzing and presenting empirical data and so on. Compact: this is our (scientific) worldview or paradigm which is based on ontological, epistemological and methodological as well as – some scholars add – axiological assumptions.

[“The ontological question: What is the form and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it? (…) The epistemological question: What is the nature of the relationship between the knower or would-be knower and what can be known? (…) The methodological question: How can the inquirer (…) go about finding out whatever he or she believes can be known?” (GUBA & LINCOLN. 1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In: DENZIN & LINCOLN (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research, 105-117). The axiological question: How do researchers’ own values affect his or her scientific endeavor? (DÖRING & BORTZ. 2016. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften). cf.

- WILSON. 1973. Normative and Interpretive Paradigms in Sociology. In: DOUGLAS (Ed.). Understanding Everyday Life, 57-79;

- GUBA & LINCOLN. 2005. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: DENZIN & LINCOLN (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edition. 191-215.

- Philosophy of Social Science Journal

etc.]

So, if traditional content analysis stems from a positivist worldview (or IMO a better wording: critical rationalism), from which worldview does qualitative content analysis stem?

My first impulse: anti-realism (coined by DUMMETT in 1978) or idealism. However, within these catch-all concepts there can be found different paradigms; some have been already mentioned in the previous discussion: Social Constructivism, Empiricism, Historicism, Pragmatics, Marxist & Neo-Marxist, Feminist, Queer Theory Approaches or so called Mixed-Methods Approaches.

For some of these paradigms, there have been spelled out specific content analyses; for example:

for Social Constructivism BAUERNSCHMIDT. 2020. Konturen kulturwissenschaftlicher Inhaltsanalyse (Outlining Cultural Qualitative Content Analysis). In: FQS 21/1, Art. 20, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-21.1.3441

for Pragmatism NOURDAD & KHIABANI. 2015. Pragmatic Content Analysis of newly developed Iranian EFL English Textbooks. In: International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World 10/1, 24-39.

for Neo-Marxist Approaches JOHNSON et al. (Eds.). 2017. Critical Content Analysis of Children’s and Young Adult Literature – Reframing Perspective. New York/London: Routledge.

for Feminist Approaches LEAVY. 2000. Feminist Content Analysis and representative Characters. In: The Qualitative Report 5/1, Art.3.

In consequence, devoid of any paradigmatic knowledge we are neither able to comprehend the differences between the listed research methods nor are we able to judge whether there is no difference at all ;)

Best Regards, Stefan