From Variance to Invariance: Qualitative Content Analysis for Narrative Graph Annotation

In disinformation datasets, narratives are often understood as recurring interpretive patterns that group texts under narrative labels. Recent work formalized narrative mining as inductively inferring narrative labels from corpora, but its evaluation stays tied to predefined taxonomies, a closed-world setting that cannot capture narratives absent from the reference labels. We introduce a three-tier evaluation framework for unsupervised narrative label generation: recovery (against a corpus's own taxonomy), mining (against external label sets), and discovery (without predefined labels). Applying it, we compare clustering-based and graph-community-based pipelines across seven disinformation datasets, with human validation of discovery on two. The two families are complementary under automated metrics, but in a corpus with two prominent topics, clustering can reduce one topic to 2% of generated labels while graph-based pipelines stay balanced. Discovery validation also reveals many singletons (narrative labels derived from single claims, 30-62% of graph outputs), which clustering cannot produce. Annotators confirm many as recognizable disinformation narratives, suggesting that in open-world discovery the repetition assumed by narrative mining may be recognized outside the corpus, not within it. We release human-validated narrative candidate labels for the Climate Obstruction and PolyNarrative datasets to support taxonomy development and dataset extension.

We propose a novel method to conceptually decompose an existing annotation into separate levels, allowing the analysis of inter-annotators disagreement in each level separately. We suggest two distinct strategies in order to actualize this approach: a theoretically-driven one, in which the researcher defines a decomposition based on prior knowledge of the annotation task, and an exploration-based one, in which many possible decompositions are inductively computed and presented to the researcher for interpretation and evaluation. Utilizing a recently constructed dataset for narrative analysis as our use-case, we apply each of the two strategies to demonstrate the potential of our approach in testing hypotheses regarding the sources of annotation disagreements, as well as revealing latent structures and relations within the annotation task. We conclude by suggesting how to extend and generalize our approach, as well as use it for other purposes.

Narrative analysis is a cornerstone of qualitative research. One leading approach is the Labovian model, but its application is labor-intensive, requiring a holistic, recursive interpretive process that moves back and forth between individual parts of the transcript and the transcript as a whole. Existing Labovian datasets are available only in English, which differs markedly from Japanese in terms of grammar and discourse conventions. To address this gap, we introduce the first systematic guidelines for Labovian narrative analysis of Japanese narrative data. Our guidelines retain all six Labovian categories and extend the framework by providing explicit rules for clause segmentation tailored to Japanese constructions. In addition, our guidelines cover a broader range of clause types and narrative types. Using these guidelines, annotators achieved high agreement in clause segmentation (Fleiss' kappa = 0.80) and moderate agreement in two structural classification tasks (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.41 and 0.45, respectively), one of which is slightly higher than that found in prior work despite the use of finer-grained distinctions. This paper describes the Labovian model, the proposed guidelines, the annotation process, and their utility. It concludes by discussing the challenges encountered during the annotation process and the prospects for developing a larger dataset for structural narrative analysis in Japanese qualitative research.