Compare methods

	Content Analysis of Political Speeches	Content Analysis of Treaties
Field	International Relations	International Relations
Family	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Year of origin	2013	2000
Originator	Content-analysis tradition; computational treatment by Justin Grimmer & Brandon Stewart	Klaus Krippendorff (content analysis methodology); legalization literature (Abbott et al.)
Type	Systematic coding and computational analysis of political text	Systematic coding of the text and design features of international agreements
Seminal source	Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297.	Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.
Aliases	Political Speech Content Analysis, Foreign-Policy Text Analysis, Quantitative Speech Analysis in IR, At-a-Distance Speech Coding	Treaty Text Analysis, International Agreement Coding, Treaty Design Content Analysis, Legalization Content Analysis
Related	3	3
Summary	Content analysis of political speeches turns the public words of foreign-policy actors — leaders' addresses, UN General Assembly statements, parliamentary debates, press briefings — into systematic, comparable measures. Spanning classic human-coded content analysis and modern text-as-data methods surveyed by Grimmer and Stewart (2013), it lets researchers quantify what leaders say: their threat perceptions, hostility, cooperative or conflictual orientation, issue priorities, and rhetorical positions, so that rhetoric can be tracked over time, compared across actors, and related to behavior.	Content analysis of treaties is the systematic, rule-governed coding of the text and design features of international agreements — their obligations, precision, delegation, enforcement, flexibility, and substantive provisions — to study how treaties are written and what explains variation in their design. It applies the established content-analysis methodology codified by Krippendorff to the specialized vocabulary of international law and institutions, often organized around frameworks such as the legalization concept of Abbott and colleagues (2000).