Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis× | Discourse Analysis of Foreign Policy× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | International Relations | International Relations |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 2005 | 2006 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | James Rosenau (CFP); Valerie Hudson and the Foreign Policy Analysis tradition | Poststructuralist IR (David Campbell, Lene Hansen) and critical discourse analysis traditions |
| Tyyppi≠ | Comparative, multi-level explanation of foreign-policy behavior | Interpretive analysis of language, meaning, and identity in foreign policy |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Hudson, V. M. (2005). Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1), 1–30. DOI ↗ | Hansen, L. (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge. link ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | Comparative Foreign Policy, CFP Analysis, Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), Comparative Study of Foreign Policy Behavior | Foreign-Policy Discourse Analysis, Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis in IR, Securitization Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis of Foreign Policy |
| Liittyvät | 3 | 3 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Comparative Foreign Policy (CFP) analysis explains the foreign-policy behavior of states by opening the 'black box' of decision making and comparing how foreign policy is produced across countries, leaders, and contexts. Part of the broader Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) tradition that Valerie Hudson (2005) characterizes as actor-specific theory, it draws on factors at multiple levels — individual leaders, small groups and bureaucracies, domestic society, and the international system — to account for why different states (or the same state at different times) behave as they do. Its hallmark is the systematic comparison of decision processes and outputs. | Discourse analysis of foreign policy is an interpretive method that examines how language constitutes the identities, threats, and interests that make particular foreign policies appear necessary and legitimate. Rather than treating speeches as data to be counted, it asks how states represent themselves and others — friend and enemy, civilized and barbaric, self and threat — and how those representations enable and constrain policy. Associated with poststructuralist IR (David Campbell, Lene Hansen, whose Security as Practice (2006) offers a systematic framework), it shows that foreign policy and identity are mutually constituted through discourse. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|