Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Vertailuun perustuva diskurssianalyysi× | Vertaileva temaattinen analyysi – Ryhmien välinen temaattinen analyysi× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Laadulliset menetelmät | Laadulliset menetelmät |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1980s–1990s (established as comparative practice through the 1990s) | 2000s–2010s (as an explicit comparative variant of thematic analysis) |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Norman Fairclough; Ruth Wodak; Teun A. van Dijk | Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (thematic analysis foundation); comparative extension developed in applied policy and cross-cultural qualitative research traditions |
| Tyyppi≠ | Qualitative comparative research approach | Qualitative comparative analytical strategy |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman. ISBN: 978-0582219526 | Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | CDA comparative, cross-context discourse analysis, comparative text analysis, multi-site discourse analysis | cross-group thematic analysis, comparative TA, multi-group thematic analysis, comparative qualitative thematic analysis |
| Liittyvät≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Comparative discourse analysis examines how language constructs meaning, identity, and power by systematically contrasting texts or speech acts drawn from at least two distinct contexts, groups, time periods, or institutions. By holding analytical categories constant across cases, it reveals how discursive patterns diverge or converge, producing insights that single-context discourse analysis cannot generate. | 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. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|