Comparar métodos
Revisa los métodos seleccionados uno junto a otro; las filas que difieren aparecen resaltadas.
| Análisis de contenido basado en el campo× | Análisis del Discurso× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo≠ | Cualitativa | Investigación cualitativa |
| Familia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Año de origen≠ | 1987 | 1989 (Fairclough); 1987 (Potter & Wetherell) |
| Autor original≠ | David L. Altheide | Norman Fairclough; Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell |
| Tipo≠ | Qualitative analytic approach | Method |
| Fuente seminal≠ | Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10(1), 65–77. DOI ↗ | Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman. link ↗ |
| Alias≠ | field content analysis, naturalistic content analysis, ethnographic content analysis, ECA | DA, Critical Discourse Analysis, Discursive Analysis |
| Relacionados≠ | 6 | 2 |
| Resumen≠ | Field-based content analysis is a qualitative analytic approach that systematically examines documents, artifacts, and texts encountered or produced within a natural field setting. Originally formulated by David Altheide as ethnographic content analysis (ECA), it blends the systematic rigor of traditional content analysis with the reflexive, iterative logic of ethnographic inquiry, allowing the researcher to interact continuously with the data and revise analytic categories as new meaning emerges from the field. | Discourse analysis is a qualitative research methodology that examines how language, communication, and power shape meaning, identity, and social reality. Developed across linguistics, sociology, and psychology (particularly by Norman Fairclough and Jonathan Potter), discourse analysis goes beyond content to analyze language use as a social practice that constitutes and reflects power relations, ideologies, and social structures. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de datos ↗ |
|
|