Suchergebnisse

Qualitative methods in political science is in the midst of a third wave of research. The first wave consisted of works on case study and comparative methodology from the late 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Smelser 1967; Verba 1967; Przeworski and Teune 1970; Sartori 1970; Lijphart 1971; Campbell 1975; Eckstein 1975; George 1979). Another outpouring of work occurred in the aftermath of the publication of King, Keohane, and Verba's Designing Social Inquiry (1994). Reactions to that work helped to spur a second wave of qualitative methodology that includes Mahoney and Rueschemeyer (2003), Brady and Collier (2004), George and Bennett (2005), Goertz (2005), Gerring (2007). Now, a new surge of publications on qualitative methods is taking place, as witnessed by this symposium of five new books (which are only a part of many new publications on qualitative methods). Yet it remains an open question whether this new work represents an amplification of themes from the second wave or a departure toward new issues.

In A Tale of Two Cultures, we propose that the qualitative and quantitative research traditions are associated with distinctive procedures and practices as well as contrasting values, beliefs, and norms -- that is, they are distinct cultures. Like most cultures, they are loosely integrated, internally contested, and ever changing. Nevertheless, they feature many important and readily identifiable differences. In the 14 chapters of the book, we explore these differences through a series of short (i.e., about 10-12 pages) essays that address specific methodological topics. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

We are grateful to Henry E. Brady and Colin Elman for their commentary on our book, A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. In this reply, we briefly respond to their concerns, especially those involving the integration of qualitative and quantitative research. Elman usefully contrasts "pluralism" and "monism" as two approaches to methodological diversity. Whereas pluralism embraces diversity and accepts different approaches on their own terms, monism advocates a single approach that can subsume all others. Framed in this way, as Elman notes, A Tale of Two Cultures unambiguously embodies methodological pluralism. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

AbstractThe international relations literature on regionalism, both in economic and security issues, has grown dramatically over the last 15 years. One of the ongoing issues discussed in most articles and books is the conceptualisation of 'region'. Instead of thinking about regions using notions of interdependence and interaction we take a social constructivist approach, whereby states themselves define regions via the construction of regional economic institutions (REI). We explore how a conceptualisation of region based on REIs contrasts with various related concepts such as regional system, and regional IGO. Empirically, we show that most all countries belong to at least one important regional economic institution, REI, (for example, EU, Mercosur, ASEAN, etc). In short, the world is dividing itself into regions by the creation of regional economic institutions. We contrast our economic-institutional approach to regions with Buzan and Wæver's 'regional security complexes' which is based on security dependence. There are interesting agreements and disagreements between their approach and our economic-institutional approach to defining regions. It is perhaps not surprising that many REIs have taken on security roles, which we briefly show by looking at military alliances embedded in REIs. This suggests that policymakers are creating regions through institutional innovations that link economic and security issues.

The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to explanation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive "cross-cultural" communication in political science.

A central challenge in qualitative research is selecting the "negative" cases (e.g., nonrevolutions, nonwars) to be included in analyses that seek to explain positive outcomes of interest (e.g., revolutions, wars). Although it is widely recognized that the selection of negative cases is consequential for theory testing, methodologists have yet to formulate specific rules to inform this selection process. In this paper, we propose a principle—the Possibility Principle—that provides explicit, rigorous, and theoretically informed guidelines for choosing a set of negative cases. The Possibility Principle advises researchers to select only negative cases where the outcome of interest is possible. Our discussion elaborates this principle and its implications for current debates about case selection and strategies of theory testing. Major points are illustrated with substantive examples from studies of revolution, economic growth, welfare states, and war.

Studies of militarized interstate dispute (MID) outcome variables have focused particularly on whether or not these disputes have resulted in war. With a few exceptions, this simple dichotomous dependent variable categorization largely ignores numerous militarized disputes with outcomes that fall short of war along with their respective settlement method. We propose that theories and findings on war might not apply to non-war disputes. This is especially true when considering approaches to conflict management. We find that: (I) the outcome of war almost always results in one side prevailing. Negotiated settlement and compromise are more likely outcomes of non-war disputes. (2) Power relations play a key role in outcomes of war but have a much-reduced impact on non-war outcomes. (3) Territorial issues are associated with dispute occurrence and war. Territorial issues, at the same time, seem to lend themselves to negotiated and compromise outcomes. (4) Ripeness occurs at the mid-severity range as opposed to lower or higher levels.

Studies of militarized interstate dispute (MID) outcome variables have focused particularly on whether these disputes have resulted in war. With a few exceptions, this simple dichotomous dependent variable categorization largely ignores numerous militarized disputes with outcomes that fall short of war along with their respective settlement method. We propose that theories & findings on war might not apply to non-war disputes. This is especially true when considering approaches to conflict management. We find that (1) the outcome of war almost always results in one side prevailing. Negotiated settlement & compromise are more likely outcomes of non-war disputes. (2) Power relations play a key role in outcomes of war but have a much-reduced impact on non-war outcomes. (3) Territorial issues are associated with dispute occurrence & war. Territorial issues, at the same time, seem to lend themselves to negotiated & compromise outcomes. (4) Ripeness occurs at the mid-severity range as opposed to lower or higher levels. 8 Tables, 43 References. Adapted from the source document.