手法を比較

	クリティカル・ドキュメント分析	クリティカル・テーマ分析（CTA）：権力に着目した質的探求
分野	質的手法	質的手法
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	Late 20th – early 21st century (2000s–present as an explicit variant)	2000s–2010s (consolidation as named variant)
提唱者	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)
種類	Qualitative research design and analytic method	Qualitative analysis approach
原典	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.
別名	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
関連	5	5
概要	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.