手法を比較

	Discourse Analysis of Foreign Policy	Content Analysis of Political Speeches
分野	International Relations	International Relations
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	2006	2013
提唱者	Poststructuralist IR (David Campbell, Lene Hansen) and critical discourse analysis traditions	Content-analysis tradition; computational treatment by Justin Grimmer & Brandon Stewart
種類	Interpretive analysis of language, meaning, and identity in foreign policy	Systematic coding and computational analysis of political text
原典	Hansen, L. (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.	Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297.
別名	Foreign-Policy Discourse Analysis, Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis in IR, Securitization Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis of Foreign Policy	Political Speech Content Analysis, Foreign-Policy Text Analysis, Quantitative Speech Analysis in IR, At-a-Distance Speech Coding
関連	3	3
概要	Discourse analysis of foreign policy is an interpretive method that examines how language constitutes the identities, threats, and interests that make particular foreign policies appear necessary and legitimate. Rather than treating speeches as data to be counted, it asks how states represent themselves and others — friend and enemy, civilized and barbaric, self and threat — and how those representations enable and constrain policy. Associated with poststructuralist IR (David Campbell, Lene Hansen, whose Security as Practice (2006) offers a systematic framework), it shows that foreign policy and identity are mutually constituted through discourse.	Content analysis of political speeches turns the public words of foreign-policy actors — leaders' addresses, UN General Assembly statements, parliamentary debates, press briefings — into systematic, comparable measures. Spanning classic human-coded content analysis and modern text-as-data methods surveyed by Grimmer and Stewart (2013), it lets researchers quantify what leaders say: their threat perceptions, hostility, cooperative or conflictual orientation, issue priorities, and rhetorical positions, so that rhetoric can be tracked over time, compared across actors, and related to behavior.