手法を比較

	解釈的質的コンテンツ分析	解釈的テーマ分析
分野	質的手法	質的手法
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	2005 (interpretive strand formalised); qualitative content analysis roots in the 1980s–1990s	2006 (systematic formulation); interpretivist application developed through 2010s
提唱者	Hsiu-Fang Hsieh & Sarah E. Shannon (conventional/interpretive strand); Phillip Mayring (qualitative content analysis generally)	Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke (systematic method); interpretivist orientation traced to constructivist qualitative traditions
種類	Qualitative analytic approach	Qualitative data analysis method
原典	Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.	Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
別名	conventional content analysis, inductive qualitative content analysis, interpretive QCA, IQCA	ITA, interpretive TA, interpretivist thematic analysis, constructivist thematic analysis
関連	5	6
概要	Interpretive qualitative content analysis (also called conventional content analysis) is a qualitative approach to systematically analysing text in which coding categories emerge directly from the data rather than from a pre-defined coding scheme. The researcher immerses themselves in the material, derives codes inductively through close reading, groups those codes into interpretive categories, and constructs a conceptual account of the content's meaning. It is especially suited to domains where existing theory is sparse and the aim is to understand how participants describe or make sense of a phenomenon.	Interpretive thematic analysis is a form of thematic analysis conducted from an interpretivist or constructivist epistemological standpoint. Rather than treating themes as residing in the data waiting to be discovered, the researcher actively constructs meaning through their engagement with the data. Built on Braun and Clarke's systematic framework, the interpretive variant foregrounds the researcher's theoretical lens and reflexivity, producing analysis that goes beyond description to explain how social, cultural, or contextual forces shape participants' accounts.