방법 비교

	비교 문서 분석	문서 분석
분야	질적 방법	질적 연구
계열	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
기원 연도	Mid-to-late 20th century; consolidated as explicit qualitative method by 2000s	1920
창시자	Rooted in historical and social science documentary methods; systematised by scholars such as Lindsay Prior and Glenn Bowen	Max Weber and Karl Mannheim
유형	Qualitative comparative research design	Method
원전	Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.	Scott, J. (1990). A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Polity Press. ISBN: 978-0745608419
별칭	comparative documentary analysis, cross-document analysis, comparative textual analysis, comparative archival analysis	documentary analysis, textual analysis, content analysis of documents, archival research
관련	6	4
요약	Comparative document analysis is a qualitative research design that systematically examines two or more documents — or document sets — side by side to identify similarities, differences, patterns, and contradictions across contexts, institutions, time periods, or jurisdictions. Drawing on document analysis as a primary method, the comparative dimension adds analytical leverage by allowing the researcher to ask not just what a document says, but how and why it differs from comparable documents elsewhere.	Document analysis is a systematic qualitative research method for examining written, visual, or audiovisual sources—such as policy documents, historical records, organizational records, media reports, emails, social media posts, photographs, or videos—to extract meaning, identify patterns, and understand social phenomena. Developed by Weber and Mannheim in early 20th-century sociology, the method bridges historical research, content analysis, and textual interpretation. Document analysis is used across disciplines to understand organizational change, policy evolution, media representation, historical events, and cultural meaning. Documents provide evidence of what organizations, institutions, or societies value, decide, and communicate, often revealing contradictions between policy and practice.