FAQ about the object of analysis
It covers everything you can research in an academic paper. The word ‘empirical evidence’ means the same thing.
This can include texts, observations, figures, statistics, interviews, sources, cases, experiences, practical examples, theories, experiments and much more.
As soon as possible and preferably before you commit to the theoretical angle. This will make it easier for you to see which theoretical angles fit your object of analysis, ensuring coherence in your assignment.
You need to use concrete knowledge to say something specific about your object of analysis. If it’s too vague, you risk that what you conclude will be too generalised and thus almost a repetition of your theoretical knowledge.
That:
- It should be as specific and delimited as possible.
- You can explore abstract phenomena such as experiences and moods.
- You should write about your object of analysis in several places in the assignment.
- The object of analysis can be many things.
If you have to work in detail with a large object of analysis, the assignment will either be too long or too descriptive.
Not really, but if you find that it’s very limited and small, you can usually expand it a bit without too much effort. It’s much more difficult to go the other way.
By having a method that suits it. For example, you could interview a number of employees about how they experience organisational change in a workplace.
Not necessarily, but many courses of study have a tradition of doing so. Most people say it’s a lot of work to do qualitative interviews, for example, but you show great academic skill by doing it.
Yes, to some extent, but you should always remember that the assessors of your assignment would rather hear you argue in favour of your choices.
Make sure you have ensured this in relation to the object of analysis:
- Is it as delimited and specific as possible?
- Can you argue academically for your choice?
- Does your object of analysis fit your choice of theory and methodology?
