方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 纵向文献分析× | 文献分析× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域≠ | 质性 | 质性研究 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 2003–2009 (formalized in qualitative research methodology) | 1920 |
| 提出者≠ | Glenn A. Bowen (document analysis framework); Johnny Saldaña (longitudinal qualitative methods) | Max Weber and Karl Mannheim |
| 类型≠ | Qualitative longitudinal research design | Method |
| 开创性文献≠ | Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. DOI ↗ | Scott, J. (1990). A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Polity Press. ISBN: 978-0745608419 |
| 别名 | longitudinal documentary research, longitudinal archival analysis, repeated document analysis, LDA | documentary analysis, textual analysis, content analysis of documents, archival research |
| 相关≠ | 3 | 4 |
| 摘要≠ | Longitudinal document analysis is a qualitative research approach that systematically collects and analyzes documents at multiple time points to trace how phenomena, discourses, policies, or organizational practices change over time. By treating documents as primary data sources rather than supplementary evidence, researchers can reconstruct temporal trajectories, identify turning points, and understand how meaning evolves across extended periods without requiring direct participant contact. | Document analysis is a systematic qualitative research method for examining written, visual, or audiovisual sources—such as policy documents, historical records, organizational records, media reports, emails, social media posts, photographs, or videos—to extract meaning, identify patterns, and understand social phenomena. Developed by Weber and Mannheim in early 20th-century sociology, the method bridges historical research, content analysis, and textual interpretation. Document analysis is used across disciplines to understand organizational change, policy evolution, media representation, historical events, and cultural meaning. Documents provide evidence of what organizations, institutions, or societies value, decide, and communicate, often revealing contradictions between policy and practice. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|