เปรียบเทียบวิธี

	การวิเคราะห์เอกสารเชิงวิพากษ์	การวิเคราะห์แก่นสาระเชิงวิพากษ์
สาขาวิชา	เชิงคุณภาพ	เชิงคุณภาพ
ตระกูล	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
ปีกำเนิด	Late 20th – early 21st century (2000s–present as an explicit variant)	2000s–2010s (consolidation as named variant)
ผู้ริเริ่ม	Glenn Bowen; Lindsay Prior (foundational document analysis); critical theory tradition (Freire, Habermas)	Draws on Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (thematic analysis, 2006) combined with critical theory traditions (Frankfurt School, feminist and postcolonial theorists)
ประเภท	Qualitative research design and analytic method	Qualitative analysis approach
แหล่งต้นตำรับ	Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.	Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
ชื่อเรียกอื่น	CDA-doc, critical documentary analysis, critical policy document analysis, critical textual document analysis	CTA, critical-theoretic thematic analysis, thematic analysis with critical lens, critical qualitative thematic inquiry
ที่เกี่ยวข้อง	5	5
สรุป	Critical document analysis is a qualitative method that systematically examines written, visual, or digital documents — such as policy texts, institutional reports, curriculum materials, and official records — through a critical theoretical lens. Rather than treating documents as neutral containers of information, it interrogates how documents produce, reflect, and reproduce power relations, ideologies, and social inequalities. The approach draws on critical theory traditions, including the work of Paulo Freire and Jurgen Habermas, as well as established frameworks for document analysis developed by Bowen and Prior.	Critical thematic analysis (CTA) is a qualitative approach that combines the systematic coding procedures of Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis with the interrogative stance of critical theory. Rather than merely describing patterns in data, CTA asks whose interests those patterns serve, what power relations they reflect, and what is absent or silenced. It is used to surface ideology, structural inequality, and hegemonic assumptions embedded in participants' accounts or in texts.