Comparer des méthodes

	Analyse critique de documents	Analyse thématique critique
Domaine	Qualitatif	Qualitatif
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	Late 20th – early 21st century (2000s–present as an explicit variant)	2000s–2010s (consolidation as named variant)
Auteur d'origine	Glenn Bowen; Lindsay Prior (foundational document analysis); critical theory tradition (Freire, Habermas)	Draws on Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (thematic analysis, 2006) combined with critical theory traditions (Frankfurt School, feminist and postcolonial theorists)
Type	Qualitative research design and analytic method	Qualitative analysis approach
Source fondatrice	Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.	Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Alias	CDA-doc, critical documentary analysis, critical policy document analysis, critical textual document analysis	CTA, critical-theoretic thematic analysis, thematic analysis with critical lens, critical qualitative thematic inquiry
Apparentées	5	5
Résumé	Critical document analysis is a qualitative method that systematically examines written, visual, or digital documents — such as policy texts, institutional reports, curriculum materials, and official records — through a critical theoretical lens. Rather than treating documents as neutral containers of information, it interrogates how documents produce, reflect, and reproduce power relations, ideologies, and social inequalities. The approach draws on critical theory traditions, including the work of Paulo Freire and Jurgen Habermas, as well as established frameworks for document analysis developed by Bowen and Prior.	Critical thematic analysis (CTA) is a qualitative approach that combines the systematic coding procedures of Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis with the interrogative stance of critical theory. Rather than merely describing patterns in data, CTA asks whose interests those patterns serve, what power relations they reflect, and what is absent or silenced. It is used to surface ideology, structural inequality, and hegemonic assumptions embedded in participants' accounts or in texts.