Methoden vergelijken
Bekijk de geselecteerde methoden naast elkaar; rijen die verschillen zijn gemarkeerd.
| Operational Code Analysis× | Content Analysis of Political Speeches× | |
|---|---|---|
| Vakgebied | International Relations | International Relations |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Jaar van ontstaan≠ | 1969 | 2013 |
| Grondlegger≠ | Nathan Leites (origin); Alexander George (construct); Walker, Schafer & Young (VICS) | Content-analysis tradition; computational treatment by Justin Grimmer & Brandon Stewart |
| Type≠ | Content-analytic measurement of leaders' political belief systems | Systematic coding and computational analysis of political text |
| Oorspronkelijke bron≠ | George, A. L. (1969). The 'operational code': A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making. International Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 190–222. DOI ↗ | Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. DOI ↗ |
| Aliassen | Operational Code, Verbs in Context System (VICS), Belief System Analysis, Operational Code Construct | Political Speech Content Analysis, Foreign-Policy Text Analysis, Quantitative Speech Analysis in IR, At-a-Distance Speech Coding |
| Verwant | 3 | 3 |
| Samenvatting≠ | Operational code analysis measures a political leader's belief system — their fundamental assumptions about the nature of politics and the best strategies for pursuing goals — from the leader's own words. Originating in Nathan Leites's study of the Bolshevik mindset and reformulated by Alexander George (1969) into a structured set of philosophical and instrumental questions, it later became a quantitative method through the Verbs in Context System (VICS). By coding how a leader talks about conflict, cooperation, control, and risk, analysts characterize the cognitive framework through which that leader interprets the world and chooses action. | Content analysis of political speeches turns the public words of foreign-policy actors — leaders' addresses, UN General Assembly statements, parliamentary debates, press briefings — into systematic, comparable measures. Spanning classic human-coded content analysis and modern text-as-data methods surveyed by Grimmer and Stewart (2013), it lets researchers quantify what leaders say: their threat perceptions, hostility, cooperative or conflictual orientation, issue priorities, and rhetorical positions, so that rhetoric can be tracked over time, compared across actors, and related to behavior. |
| ScholarGateGegevensset ↗ |
|
|