Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Vertaileva temaattinen analyysi – Ryhmien välinen temaattinen analyysi× | Vertailuun perustuva diskurssianalyysi× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Laadulliset menetelmät | Laadulliset menetelmät |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 2000s–2010s (as an explicit comparative variant of thematic analysis) | 1980s–1990s (established as comparative practice through the 1990s) |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (thematic analysis foundation); comparative extension developed in applied policy and cross-cultural qualitative research traditions | Norman Fairclough; Ruth Wodak; Teun A. van Dijk |
| Tyyppi≠ | Qualitative comparative analytical strategy | Qualitative comparative research approach |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI ↗ | Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman. ISBN: 978-0582219526 |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | cross-group thematic analysis, comparative TA, multi-group thematic analysis, comparative qualitative thematic analysis | CDA comparative, cross-context discourse analysis, comparative text analysis, multi-site discourse analysis |
| Liittyvät≠ | 6 | 5 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|