Compara mètodes

	Anàlisi Temàtica Comparativa	Anàlisi de Marc
Camp	Qualitativa	Qualitativa
Família	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Any d'origen	2000s–2010s (as an explicit comparative variant of thematic analysis)	1994
Autor original	Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (thematic analysis foundation); comparative extension developed in applied policy and cross-cultural qualitative research traditions	Jane Ritchie & Liz Spencer (National Centre for Social Research, UK)
Tipus	Qualitative comparative analytical strategy	Qualitative research method
Font seminal	Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.	Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing Qualitative Data (pp. 173–194). Routledge.
Àlies	cross-group thematic analysis, comparative TA, multi-group thematic analysis, comparative qualitative thematic analysis	FA, Framework Method, Framework Approach, Applied Qualitative Analysis
Relacionats	6	6
Resum	Comparative Thematic Analysis applies the structured procedures of thematic analysis across two or more distinct groups, sites, or time points, with the explicit aim of identifying both shared patterns and meaningful differences. Rather than producing a single composite account of experience, it yields a layered analysis that maps where themes converge and diverge across comparison units — making it especially valuable for policy-relevant, cross-cultural, or multi-site qualitative studies.	Framework Analysis is a structured qualitative method developed by Jane Ritchie and Liz Spencer at the UK National Centre for Social Research in 1994. It organises qualitative data into a thematic matrix — the analytical framework — enabling systematic comparison across participants and themes. Originally designed for applied policy research with specific questions and timelines, it is now widely used in health services, social policy, and management research where transparency and rigorous cross-case comparison are essential.