Порівняння методів

	Content Analysis of Political Speeches	Discourse Analysis of Foreign Policy
Галузь	International Relations	International Relations
Родина	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Рік появи	2013	2006
Автор методу	Content-analysis tradition; computational treatment by Justin Grimmer & Brandon Stewart	Poststructuralist IR (David Campbell, Lene Hansen) and critical discourse analysis traditions
Тип	Systematic coding and computational analysis of political text	Interpretive analysis of language, meaning, and identity in foreign policy
Основоположне джерело	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.	Hansen, L. (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.
Інші назви	Political Speech Content Analysis, Foreign-Policy Text Analysis, Quantitative Speech Analysis in IR, At-a-Distance Speech Coding	Foreign-Policy Discourse Analysis, Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis in IR, Securitization Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis of Foreign Policy
Пов'язані	3	3
Підсумок	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.	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.