手法を比較

	アクションリサーチ	コンテンツ分析	Delphi Method
分野	質的研究	質的手法	質的手法
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	1946	Systematised through Krippendorff's methodology work; 4th edition 2018	1963
提唱者	Kurt Lewin; expanded by Kemmis, McTaggart, Reason & Bradbury	Klaus Krippendorff (systematic formulation); roots in early 20th-century communications research	Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer (RAND Corporation)
種類	Method	Qualitative / mixed-method research technique	Structured iterative expert-elicitation process
原典	Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.	Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (4th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-1506395661	Dalkey, N. & Helmer, O. (1963). An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.
別名	Participatory Action Research, PAR, Collaborative Inquiry	İçerik Analizi, systematic content coding, quantitative content analysis	Delphi Yöntemi, Delphi technique, expert consensus method
関連	1	5	5
概要	Action research is a collaborative research methodology in which researchers work with practitioners and community members to investigate a problem, implement change, and evaluate outcomes, cycling through reflection, action, and learning. Developed by Kurt Lewin (1946), action research bridges research and practice, aiming simultaneously to produce knowledge and practical improvement.	Content analysis is a systematic research technique for reducing text, visual, or media material into coded categories so that patterns can be counted, compared, and interpreted. Formalised by Klaus Krippendorff in his widely cited methodology textbook (latest edition 2018), the method sits at the boundary of qualitative and quantitative inquiry: it imposes structured, replicable coding on inherently meaning-laden material.	The Delphi method is a structured, iterative survey technique developed by Norman Dalkey and Olaf Helmer at the RAND Corporation in 1963 for eliciting and converging expert opinion on complex topics where empirical data are unavailable or insufficient. It collects independent judgements from a geographically dispersed expert panel over multiple anonymous rounds, feeding aggregated results back to participants after each round so they can revise their views in light of the group's collective position.