Search results

This book offers a one-volume introduction to social science methodology, relevant to the disciplines of anthropology, economics, history, political science, psychology, and sociology. It is written for beginning students, long-time practitioners and methodologists, and applies to work conducted in qualitative and quantitative styles. It synthesizes the vast and diverse field of methodology in a way that is clear, concise, and comprehensive. While offering a handy overview of the subject, the book is also an argument about how we should conceptualize methodological problems. Tasks and criteria, the author argues - not fixed rules of procedure - best describe the search for methodological adequacy. Thinking about methodology through this lens provides a new framework for understanding work in the social sciences

This book, first published in 1998, challenges traditional notions of American party politics and political culture. Usually, American politics is looked upon as relatively consensual and nonideological. Professor Gerring argues, instead, that the major parties have articulated views that were coherent, differentiated, and stable. American party history, and by extension American political history at-large, has been irreducibly ideological. The argument rests on evidence provided by election rhetoric - speeches, party platforms, and other campaign tracts disseminated by party leaders during presidential campaigns. With these texts Professor Gerring traces the values, beliefs, and issue-positions which have defined party life from the 1830s to the 1990s. Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996 thus presents an historical synthesis of mainstream party politics from the birth of competitive parties to the present

One might argue that political science has gone further than any other social science in developing a rigorous field of study devoted to qualitative methods. This review article begins by discussing the time-honored qualitative/quantitative distinction. What is qualitative data and analysis, and how does it differ from quantitative data and analysis? I propose a narrow definition of "qualitative" and explore its implications. I also explore in a speculative vein some of the factors underlying the ongoing Methodenstreit between scholars who identify with quantitative and qualitative approaches to social science. In the remainder of the article I discuss areas of qualitative research that have been especially fecund over the past decade. These include case selection, causal inference, and multimethod research.

This article attempts to reformulate and resuscitate the seemingly prosaic methodological task of description, which is often derided in favour of causal analysis. First, the problem of definition is addressed: what does this category of analysis ('description') refer to? Secondly, a taxonomy of descriptive arguments is offered, emphasizing the diversity contained within this genre of empirical analysis. Thirdly, the demise of description within political science is charted over the past century, with comparisons to other disciplines. Fourthly, it is argued that the task of description ought to be approached independently, not merely as a handmaiden of causal theories. Fifthly, the methodological difficulties of descriptive inference are addressed. Finally, fruitful research areas within the rubric of description are reviewed.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the First Social Scientist. By Jon Elster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 212p. $80.00 cloth, $22.99 paper.Alexis de Tocqueville is surely one of the most widely cited, discussed, and celebrated political theorists in the world. Jon Elster's book,Alexis de Tocqueville: the First Social Scientistproceeds from a provocative premise: that Tocqueville's major works were lacking in "system" and were "hugely incoherent," and that Tocqeuville himself "was not a major political thinker" (xi). Elster argues that instead Tocqueville ought to be viewed as a penetrating historical sociologist and an exemplary social scientist who might well be considered the first true social scientist. Elster's argument is important for at least two reasons: first, because it offers a striking and challenging reading of Tocqueville; and second, because it expands on Elster's own contributions in the philosophy of social science, and develops interesting understandings of "causal mechanisms," methodological individualism, and social explanation more generally. As Elster writes in his Introduction, "the main task of this book is to argue for the relevance of Tocqueville for social science in the twenty-first century (p. 5)." The purpose of this Perspectives symposium is to assess Elster's argument in broad terms. What are the strengths and limits of Elster's reading of Tocqueville? How ought we to assess Elster's understanding of Tocqueville's deficiencies as a "political theorist?" What is the relevance of Tocqueville for contemporary social science? And, most importantly, what are the challenges and possible trajectories facing social science in the twenty-first century, and to what extent does Elster's essay point us in the right direction?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

A specter is haunting political science. It is the specter of methodological perfectionism. This dogma places methods before substance and imposes a narrow spectrum of accept-able methods on the discipline