방법 비교

	문서 기반 프로그램 평가	문서 분석
분야	현장 조사법	질적 연구
계열	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
기원 연도	1960s–1970s (program evaluation field); document review as formal strategy codified in 1980s–1990s	1920
창시자	Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi and Howard Freeman (systematic program evaluation tradition)	Max Weber and Karl Mannheim
유형	Evaluation research design	Method
원전	Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications. Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-0787908331	Scott, J. (1990). A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Polity Press. ISBN: 978-0745608419
별칭	documentary program evaluation, records-based evaluation, document review evaluation, archival program evaluation	documentary analysis, textual analysis, content analysis of documents, archival research
관련	6	4
요약	Document-based program evaluation is a systematic approach to assessing a program's design, implementation, and outcomes using existing documentary evidence — such as policy statements, implementation reports, budgets, meeting minutes, and program artifacts — rather than primary data collection through interviews or observation. It is particularly suited to retrospective evaluations, accountability reviews, and contexts where direct fieldwork is impractical or infeasible.	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.