方法对比

	比较性斯特劳斯扎根理论	比较定性内容分析
领域	质性	质性
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	1967 (discovery); systematic Straussian procedures codified 1990/1998	1983 (Mayring's QCA foundation); comparative adaptations prominent from 2000s onward
提出者	Anselm Strauss & Juliet Corbin (Straussian GT); comparative extension built on Glaser & Strauss (1967)	Philipp Mayring (qualitative content analysis); comparative application developed across communication, policy, and social science research
类型	Qualitative comparative research design	Qualitative research design and analysis strategy
开创性文献	Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0803959408	Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Sage. ISBN: 978-0857029201
别名	Strauss-Corbin comparative GT, comparative systematic grounded theory, multi-site Straussian GT, comparative grounded theory (Straussian)	comparative QCA, cross-case qualitative content analysis, multi-context qualitative content analysis, comparative interpretive content analysis
相关	6	4
摘要	Comparative Straussian Grounded Theory applies the systematic open–axial–selective coding framework of Strauss and Corbin across two or more purposively selected contexts, groups, or sites to generate theory that explains both within-context processes and cross-context variation. The constant comparative method — the analytic engine first described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) — is elevated to a deliberate design-level strategy, allowing researchers to build mid-range theory that accounts for how social processes unfold differently under varying conditions.	Comparative qualitative content analysis (comparative QCA) applies a systematic, category-driven reading of texts or documents across two or more cases, groups, time periods, or cultural contexts, with the explicit goal of identifying similarities, differences, and patterns that emerge from the comparison. It combines the interpretive rigour of qualitative content analysis with a structured comparative logic, making it valuable for cross-national policy research, media studies, and any inquiry that requires principled comparison of meaning across contexts.