방법 비교

	Discourse Analysis of Foreign Policy	Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis
분야	International Relations	International Relations
계열	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
기원 연도	2006	2005
창시자	Poststructuralist IR (David Campbell, Lene Hansen) and critical discourse analysis traditions	James Rosenau (CFP); Valerie Hudson and the Foreign Policy Analysis tradition
유형	Interpretive analysis of language, meaning, and identity in foreign policy	Comparative, multi-level explanation of foreign-policy behavior
원전	Hansen, L. (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.	Hudson, V. M. (2005). Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1), 1–30.
별칭	Foreign-Policy Discourse Analysis, Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis in IR, Securitization Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis of Foreign Policy	Comparative Foreign Policy, CFP Analysis, Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), Comparative Study of Foreign Policy Behavior
관련	3	3
요약	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.	Comparative Foreign Policy (CFP) analysis explains the foreign-policy behavior of states by opening the 'black box' of decision making and comparing how foreign policy is produced across countries, leaders, and contexts. Part of the broader Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) tradition that Valerie Hudson (2005) characterizes as actor-specific theory, it draws on factors at multiple levels — individual leaders, small groups and bureaucracies, domestic society, and the international system — to account for why different states (or the same state at different times) behave as they do. Its hallmark is the systematic comparison of decision processes and outputs.