Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bp2c4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T07:57:40.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Model-Based Clustering to Improve Qualitative Inquiry: Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis, Latent Class Analysis, and Interpretive Transparency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

George E. Mitchell  and
Hans Peter Schmitz Open the ORCID record for Hans Peter Schmitz [Opens in a new window]
George E. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
Marxe School at Baruch College, One Bernard Baruch Way, New York, NY 10010, USA
Hans Peter Schmitz*
Affiliation:
University of San Diego, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110, USA
*
george.mitchell@baruch.cuny.edu
schmitz@sandiego.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A combination of computer-aided qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS) and latent class analysis (LCA) can substantially augment the qualitative analysis of textual data sources used in third-sector studies. This article explains how to employ both techniques iteratively to capture often implicit ideas and meaning-making by third-sector leaders, donors, and other stakeholders. CAQDAS facilitates the coding, organization, and quantification of qualitative data, effectively creating parallel qualitative and quantitative data structures. LCA facilities the discovery of latent concepts, document classification, and the identification of exemplary qualitative evidence to aid interpretation. For third-sector research, CAQDAS and LCA are particularly promising because diverse stakeholders usually do not share homogenous views about core issues such as organizational effectiveness, collaboration, impact measurement, or philanthropic approaches, for example. The procedure explained here provides a rigorous method for discovering and understanding diversity in perspectives and is especially useful in medium-n research settings common to third-sector scholarship.

Keywords

Computer-aided qualitative data analysis softwareLatent class analysisMixed-methodsNonprofitsNGOs

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2023 , pp. 162 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahlquist, J. S., & Breunig, C. (2012). Model-based clustering and typologies in the social sciences. Political Analysis, 20(1), 92–112. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpr039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumer, E. P. S., Mimno, D., Guha, S., Quan, E., & Gay, G. K. (2017). Comparing grounded theory and topic modeling: Extreme divergence or unlikely convergence?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(6), 1397–1410. doi: 10.1002/asi.23786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
Berlan, D. (2018). Understanding nonprofit missions as dynamic and interpretative conceptions. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(3), 413–422. doi: 10.1002/nml.21295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaikie, N., & Priest, J. (2017). Social research: Paradigms in action. Wiley.Google Scholar
Bolck, A., Croon, M., & Hagenaars, J. (2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12(1), 3–27. doi: 10.1093/pan/mph001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaney, P. (2015). Exploring the Pathologies of One-Party-Dominance on Third Sector Public Policy Engagement in Liberal Democracies: Evidence from Meso-Government in the UK. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(4), 1460–1484. doi: 10.1007/s11266-014-9493-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, L. M., & Christie, C. A. (2016). Evaluation policy in a nonprofit foundation: A case study exploration of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. American Journal of Evaluation, 38(1), 60–79. doi: 10.1177/1098214016642864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, V. F. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2850–2861. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3560.Google Scholar
Gugerty, M. K., Mitchell, G. E., & Santamarina, F. (2021). Discourses of evaluation: Institutional logics and organizational practices among international development agencies. World Development. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, J., & Howieson, B. (2017). The challenges of leadership in the third sector. European Management Journal, 35(1), 69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isoaho, K., Gritsenko, D., & Mäkelä, E. (2021). Topic modeling and text analysis for qualitative policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 300–324. doi: 10.1111/psj.12343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingston, L. N., & Stam, K. R. (2013). Online advocacy: Analysis of human rights NGO websites. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 5(1), 75–95. doi: 10.1093/jhuman/hus036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Chandra, Y., Nie, L., & Fan, Y. (2020). From women for women: The role of social media in online nonprofit activities during Wuhan lockdown. Public Administration and Development, 40(5), 267–272. doi: 10.1002/pad.1898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2002). Latent class models for clustering: A comparison with K-means. Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 37–44.Google Scholar
Mannheimer, S., Pienta, A., Kirilova, D., Elman, C., & Wutich, A. (2018). Qualitative data sharing: Data repositories and academic libraries as key partners in addressing challenges. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(5), 643–664. doi: 10.1177/0002764218784991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marberg, A., Korzilius, H., & van Kranenburg, H. (2017). What is in a theme? Professionalization in nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations research. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 30(1), 113–131. doi: 10.1002/nml.21355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, C. (2019). Coproduction and the third sector in France: Governmental traditions and the French conceptualization of participation. Social Policy & Administration, 53(2), 295–310. doi: 10.1111/spol.12482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. E. (2013a). Collaborative propensities among transnational NGOs registered in the United States. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(5), 575–599. doi: 10.1177/0275074012474337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. E. (2013b). The construct of organizational effectiveness: Perspectives from leaders of international nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 324–345. doi: 10.1177/0899764011434589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. E. (2014a). Latent class analysis: Discovering and interpreting response patterns in coded interview data. SAGE Research Methods Cases.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. E. (2014b). The strategic orientations of US-based NGOs. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1874–1893. doi: 10.1007/s11266-014-9507-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. E. (2014c). Strategic responses to resource dependence among transnational NGOs registered in the United States. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1), 67–91. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9329-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, M. R. C., Laureano, R. M. S., & Moro, S. (2020). Unveiling research trends for organizational reputation in the nonprofit sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31, 56–70. doi: 10.1007/s11266-018-00055-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, H. P., Mitchell, G. E., & McCollim, E. (2021). How billionaires explain their philanthropy: A mixed-method analysis of the giving pledge letters. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32, 512–523. doi: 10.1007/s11266-021-00338-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, H. P., Raggo, P., & Bruno-van Vijfeijken, T. (2012). Accountability of transnational NGOs: Aspirations vs. practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1175–1194. doi: 10.1177/0899764011431165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinkovics, R. R., & Alfoldi, E. A. (2012). Progressive focusing and trustworthiness in qualitative research. Management International Review, 52(6), 817–845. doi: 10.1007/s11575-012-0140-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souder, L. (2016). A review of research on nonprofit communications from mission statements to annual reports. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 2709–2733. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9699-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdez, D., Pickett, A. C., & Goodson, P. (2018). Topic modeling: Latent semantic analysis for the social sciences. Social Science Quarterly, 99(5), 1665–1679. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18(4), 450–469. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpq025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. M., Chandra, Y., Zhang, J., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2019). Topic modeling the research-practice gap in public administration. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 931–937. doi: 10.1111/puar.13095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, N. H., & Silver, C. (2018). Qualitative analysis using NVivo: The five-level QDA® method. Routledge.Google Scholar