방법 비교
선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.
| 현장 기반 대화 분석× | 담화 분석× | |
|---|---|---|
| 분야≠ | 질적 방법 | 질적 연구 |
| 계열 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 기원 연도≠ | 1960s–1970s (CA foundations); field applications consolidated from the 1990s onward | 1989 (Fairclough); 1987 (Potter & Wetherell) |
| 창시자≠ | Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, Gail Jefferson (CA roots); extended to field settings by later ethnomethodologists | Norman Fairclough; Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell |
| 유형≠ | Qualitative observational-analytic approach | Method |
| 원전≠ | Hindmarsh, J., & Llewellyn, N. (2017). Video in sociomaterial investigations: A solution to the problem of relevance for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 21(2), 412–437. DOI ↗ | Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman. link ↗ |
| 별칭≠ | field CA, naturalistic conversation analysis, in situ conversation analysis, fieldwork CA | DA, Critical Discourse Analysis, Discursive Analysis |
| 관련≠ | 3 | 2 |
| 요약≠ | Field-based conversation analysis (field CA) applies the rigorous sequential-analytic methods of conversation analysis to talk and interaction recorded in real-world settings — workplaces, clinics, classrooms, and public spaces — rather than to pre-existing corpora or laboratory data. By combining sustained fieldwork access with fine-grained transcript analysis, it reveals how social order is accomplished turn by turn in the actual environments where it matters. | Discourse analysis is a qualitative research methodology that examines how language, communication, and power shape meaning, identity, and social reality. Developed across linguistics, sociology, and psychology (particularly by Norman Fairclough and Jonathan Potter), discourse analysis goes beyond content to analyze language use as a social practice that constitutes and reflects power relations, ideologies, and social structures. |
| ScholarGate데이터셋 ↗ |
|
|