Documentary analysis – A useful method of primary research

Most students doing their thesis, or dissertation, start the process by using documents for their secondary (desk) research. Such sources include, for example, textbooks, book chapters, journal articles, government reports and industry surveys. They are written by academics and practitioners (historians, social scientists, policy analysts, industry experts, etc.) and provide a second-hand account of past events or activities. These materials are then critiqued by students to link their research questions to the literature review section of their thesis.

Another type of document, primary source, are also available to researchers. These include original evidence, such as agendas and minutes of meetings, which offer a first-hand account of past or current events and activities. Such directly sourced documents can be considered as primary data. A well-structured and systematic analysis of this material can, in certain circumstances, provide the basis for a form of primary research known as documentary analysis. It is method that interrogates and investigates original documents, rather than people, such as Christensen’s (2000) innovation research. In this seminal work, he used performance data from product and productivity announcements from computer disk drive manufacturers to provide supporting evidence for his thesis on disruptive innovation.

Documentary analysis interrogates original documents, that is, those that provide the first occurrence of a piece of work. As these documents focus on new material, they are inclined to be detailed in nature and can, sometimes, be challenging to access. Such work can be publicly available (like research theses, conference proceedings and some government and industry reports). They are, however, more likely to be privately held (like unpublished manuscripts, minutes from committee meetings and private emails). These sources do not have to be written documents per se. Documentary analysis can focus on various forms of communication (like audio recordings, radio programmes, podcasts, video recordings, television programmes, conference speeches, plans, maps, diaries, slide-presentations, paintings, monuments, photographs, and so on). The list is almost endless. In the digital age, a broad and expansive definition of what constitutes a document has been adopted. For example, a researcher we worked with last year used the events log of an experiment for a mission in space!

It can be useful to distinguish between two sources for documentary analysis – deliberate and inadvertent. Deliberate sources have been produced intentionally for future use by other researchers. It is evidence that was consciously gathered and archived for future analysis (such as a video recording of the inauguration speech of John F. Kennedy, a former president of the USA). There are also inadvertent sources that are generated for a different purpose but employed by a researcher for their specific objective. An example is a diary written for personal reflection, but later discovered and made available for other researchers (such as the authentic, hand-written Diary of Anne Frank).

Some documentary analysis researchers make a distinction between witting evidence (what the document meant to say) and unwitting evidence (what can be interpreted by ‘reading between the lines’). They also differentiate between quantitative and qualitative evidence. Furthermore, a distinction can be made between unobtrusive and obtrusive evidence (such as neutral headlines that intend to inform versus provocative headlines, which invite reaction).

Some in the academic community believe that documentary analysis is less important, and less relevant, than research based on direct analysis of what people say (like an interview) or write (such as a questionnaire). They argue that analysing documents puts you at least one-step, and usually two, or more, steps, from reality. Moreover, they maintain that it is too easy for bias and misinterpretation to come into play, particularly if the document has not been prepared wittingly. Additionally, they contend it can be difficult for the credibility of a document to be established (is it ‘real’ or ‘fake news’). As a result, some scholars question the veracity of research based on documentary analysis.

Those who favour documentary analysis maintain it is eminently suitable for student-based research due to relative ease of access and retrieval. The permanent nature of such documents has also been highlighted as an advantage. This facilitates a return to the original source for re-analysis by other scholars. Other benefits include the low-resource outlay (in terms of time and money) of obtaining a large amount of data; the source material being amenable to a wide range of quantitative and qualitative analysis; and the provision of a subsidiary data-collection approach to help with triangulation of other data. Once credibility can be established, advocates argue documentary analysis is a highly reliable and valid method of primary research.

If you are considering using documentary analysis, it is important you explore the pros and cons, and justify the approach for your study. You may find our downloadable digital resources helpful when designing your study, collecting your data, and analysing and interpreting your data. Buy now for immediate use.