Suchergebnisse

Der Beitrag diskutiert die Möglichkeiten der Triangulation qualitativer und quantitatver Methoden in der Netzwerkanalyse. In der empirischen Sozialforschung versteht man unter Triangulation die Kombination von unterschiedlichen Methoden, durch welche eine umfassendere und präzisere Erkenntnisgrundlage gewonnen werden kann. Zu klären ist dabei, wann eine triangulierende Forschungsstrategie in Frage kommt sowie welche Art Triangulation durchgeführt werden soll. Der Beitrag beschränkt sich auf Verfahren der Netzwerkanalyse, die explizit für die Untersuchung von Relationen entworfen wurden. Gemeinsam ist sämtlichen Verfahren, dass sich diese eindeutig der Kategorie quantitativer Methoden zuordnen lassen und bisher nur vereinzelt von qualitativen Methoden die Rede war. Triangulation sollte immer dann in Betracht gezogen werden, wenn variierende Relevanzsetzungen vorliegen, von einer hohen Bedeutung von Kontextfaktoren auszugehen ist und wenig Vorwissen hinsichtlich der systemspezifischen Relevanzsetzungen besteht. Eine Triangulation in der Netzwerkanalyse ist unerlässlich, wenn es darum geht, nicht nur Strukturen und deren Effekte zu beschreiben, sondern auch zugrunde liegende Akteursstrategien zu identifizieren, mit denen sich Netzwerkstrukturen, -effekte und -dynamiken besser erklären und verstehen lassen. (ICB2)

The increasing use of quantitative methods in policy analysis raises a number of problems connected with 'squishy' or ill-defined problems, which are frequently encountered in governmental policy formation. Such problems can be defined by the absence of an unequivocal basis for choosing a mathematical model. A 3-level conceptual model of such problems is formulated: the actual problem, the formal problem resulting from conceptualizing the actual problem, & the mathematical model of the formal problem. The formal problem may derive from the actual problem, & risk being unanalyzable; or it may derive from the analytical techniques available, & risk being irrelevant. 2 ways of using models are distinguished: (1) as surrogates for substantive problems, such as Newtonian mechanics, or (2) as perspectives on them, such as 2-dimensional perspective drawing. The 2nd approach may be preferable in dealing with 'squishy' problems, despite its risks. 7 Figures. Modified HA.

Evaluation of Quantitative Easing (QE) is difficult as it is only used in response to severe and unusual economic difficulties. Despite this, we argue that two main conclusions can be drawn from a sceptical reading of the evidence. First, large scale asset purchases reduce government bond rates, especially at the longer end of the yield curve. However this effect may be temporary and is small if bond rates are already low, while initial waves of QE are more effective than subsequent programs. Second, QE appears to have been effective in late 2008 and 2009, preventing even larger declines in output and inflation than were experienced. We argue that the literature is limited, relying on similar methodologies and largely originating in Central Banks. Exploration of alternative approaches to QE would be useful in widening an evidence base that is currently too narrow.

The last twenty years have seen the emergence of a new generation of polls: the deliberative polls. Unlike usual polling, deliberative polling—first suggested by Fishkin and Luskin—emphasizes not only the representation of polling but also the deliberation. The deliberative poll attempts to represent all in a given population, through a statistical microcosm empowered to think about the issues in question under favorable conditions—the sample population takes a questionnaire, then is informed through a learning process that alternates discussions in small groups and with experts and politicians, and eventually re-takes the same questionnaire. Although—quantitative—deliberative polling catches the big picture—what people think before and after and how their opinions vary, it hardly gives any insight on why the citizens change their opinions and, above all, what it means after the learning process. This question is especially important in topics where little change of opinions may be expected such as political preferences and identities. Specifically, the qualitative deliberative polling is used to explore the relationship between the citizens' perception (understood as knowledge, legitimacy, identity, and perception of the others) of the federal government in both Belgium and Canada and their federal preferences vis-à-vis the evolution of the regime. Conducting qualitative and quantitative deliberative polling in those cases seem to offer the best result since the quantitative aspect provides a general picture of the change of opinions while the qualitative aspect endeavors to understand the change of opinions. Qualitative deliberative polling relies on a systematic qualitative content analysis of the focus groups' discussions and interaction between the participants and the experts. To combine qualitative methods with—quantitative—deliberative polling has the potential to provide a finer picture of the citizens' opinions on a broad variety of topics and issues. ; Peer reviewed