手法を比較

	Grounded Visualization	Ethnographic Interview
分野	Anthropology	Anthropology
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	2006	1979
提唱者	Qualitative GIS / mixed-methods geography tradition (Knigge & Cope)	James P. Spradley
種類	Iterative integration of grounded-theory qualitative analysis with GIS visualization	Structured developmental sequence of interview questions for eliciting cultural knowledge
原典	Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (6th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN: 9780759112421	Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN: 9780030444968
別名	Grounded Visualisation, Qualitative GIS Analysis, Grounded Theory GIS Integration, Spatially Grounded Analysis	Spradley Interview, Developmental Research Sequence Interview, Ethnographic Interviewing, Domain Elicitation Interview
関連	3	3
概要	Grounded visualization is a mixed-methods analytic approach that weaves grounded-theory qualitative analysis together with GIS-based spatial visualization, so that emerging codes and maps inform one another iteratively rather than sequentially. Instead of mapping results after the qualitative analysis is finished, the analyst moves back and forth: a pattern noticed while coding interviews prompts a map, the map raises a spatial question that sends the analyst back to the text, and so on. The aim is an interpretation that is simultaneously grounded in participants' accounts and attentive to the geography in which those accounts are situated.	The ethnographic interview, formalized by James Spradley, is a deliberately staged conversation whose goal is to discover how an insider categorizes and talks about their own cultural world rather than to test the researcher's categories. It proceeds through a developmental research sequence of question types — broad grand-tour questions, fine-grained descriptive questions, structural questions that probe how knowledge is organized, and contrast questions that surface the distinctions informants draw between terms. The point is not a list of facts but a reconstructed map of meanings expressed in the informant's own native terms.