Vertaile menetelmiä

	Vertaileva kvalitatiivinen sisällönanalyysi	Vertaileva temaattinen analyysi – Ryhmien välinen temaattinen analyysi
Tieteenala	Laadulliset menetelmät	Laadulliset menetelmät
Menetelmäperhe	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	1983 (Mayring's QCA foundation); comparative adaptations prominent from 2000s onward	2000s–2010s (as an explicit comparative variant of thematic analysis)
Kehittäjä	Philipp Mayring (qualitative content analysis); comparative application developed across communication, policy, and social science research	Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (thematic analysis foundation); comparative extension developed in applied policy and cross-cultural qualitative research traditions
Tyyppi	Qualitative research design and analysis strategy	Qualitative comparative analytical strategy
Alkuperäislähde	Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Sage. ISBN: 978-0857029201	Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Rinnakkaisnimet	comparative QCA, cross-case qualitative content analysis, multi-context qualitative content analysis, comparative interpretive content analysis	cross-group thematic analysis, comparative TA, multi-group thematic analysis, comparative qualitative thematic analysis
Liittyvät	4	6
Tiivistelmä	Comparative qualitative content analysis (comparative QCA) applies a systematic, category-driven reading of texts or documents across two or more cases, groups, time periods, or cultural contexts, with the explicit goal of identifying similarities, differences, and patterns that emerge from the comparison. It combines the interpretive rigour of qualitative content analysis with a structured comparative logic, making it valuable for cross-national policy research, media studies, and any inquiry that requires principled comparison of meaning across contexts.	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.