手法を比較
選択した手法を並べて確認できます。異なる行はハイライト表示されます。
| 評価に焦点を当てた法的コンテンツ分析× | プログラム評価× | |
|---|---|---|
| 分野 | フィールド調査法 | フィールド調査法 |
| 系統 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 提唱年≠ | Late 20th century; evaluation-focused applications emerged prominently from the 1990s onward | 1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971) |
| 提唱者≠ | Builds on Klaus Krippendorff's content analysis framework and legal scholarship traditions | Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi |
| 種類≠ | Systematic qualitative/quantitative legal document analysis | Applied evaluation methodology |
| 原典≠ | Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-0761915454 | Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761908944 |
| 別名 | legal text evaluation, evaluative legal content analysis, assessment-oriented legal content analysis, legal document evaluation research | evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation |
| 関連≠ | 5 | 3 |
| 概要≠ | Evaluation-focused legal content analysis is a systematic method for examining legal texts — statutes, regulations, court decisions, contracts, or policy documents — with an explicit evaluative purpose: to assess whether and how well legal instruments achieve specified goals, standards, or values. It combines the structured coding procedures of content analysis with normative legal evaluation criteria, enabling researchers and practitioners to make evidence-based assessments of legal effectiveness, compliance, or quality. | Program evaluation is a systematic, empirically grounded process of collecting and analyzing information about a program to determine its merit, worth, or significance. Applied across education, public health, social services, and policy, it addresses questions such as whether a program is reaching its target population, whether it is being implemented as designed, and whether it is producing the intended outcomes. It draws on both quantitative and qualitative methods and serves accountability, improvement, or knowledge-generation purposes. |
| ScholarGateデータセット ↗ |
|
|