Qualitative Methods Gerring, John
Annual review of political science,
05/2017, Letnik:
20, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
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.
Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But Gerring, John
Comparative political studies,
11/2010, Letnik:
43, Številka:
11
Journal Article
Recenzirano
In recent years, the importance of mechanism-centered explanation has become an article of faith within the social sciences, uniting researchers from a wide variety of methodological ...traditions—quantitative and qualitative, experimental and nonexperimental, nomothetic and idiographic, formal models and narrative prose. Despite its many virtues, there are reasons to be skeptical of social science’s newfound infatuation with causal mechanisms. First, the concept of a mechanism-centered (“mechanismic”) explanation is fundamentally ambiguous, meaning different things to different people. Second, the minimal objectives associated with the turn to mechanisms—to specify causal mechanisms and engage in detailed causal reasoning—are not at variance with traditional practices in the social sciences and thus hardly qualify as a distinct approach to causal assessment. Finally, the more demanding goal of rigorously testing causal mechanisms in causal arguments is admirable but often unrealistic. To clarify, this is not a polemic against mechanisms. It is a polemic against a dogmatic interpretation of the mechanismic mission. Causal mechanisms are rightly regarded as an important, but secondary, element of causal assessment—by no means a necessary condition.
This book outlines the importance of political institutions in achieving good governance within a democratic polity and sets forth an argument to explore what sorts of institutions do the job best. ...By focusing on 'centripetal institutions', which maximize both representation and authority by bringing political energy and actors toward the centre of a polity, the authors set forth a relatively novel theory of democratic governance, applicable to all political settings in which multi-party competition obtains. Basing their theory on national-level political institutions, the authors argue that there are three types of political institutions that are fundamental in securing a centripetal style of democratic governance: unitary (rather than federal) sovereignty, a parliamentary (rather than presidential) executive, and a closed-list PR electoral system (rather than a single-member district or preferential-vote system).
Mere Description Gerring, John
British journal of political science,
10/2012, Letnik:
42, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Recenzirano
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.
A Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy Skaaning, Svend-Erik; Gerring, John; Bartusevičius, Henrikas
Comparative political studies,
10/2015, Letnik:
48, Številka:
12
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Recent years have seen an efflorescence of work focused on the definition and operationalization of democracy. One debate concerns whether democracy is best measured by binary or graded scales. ...Critics of binary indices point out at that they are overly reductionist, while defenders counter that the different levels of graded measures are not associated with a specific set of conditions. Against this backdrop, we propose to operationalize electoral democracy as a series of necessary and sufficient conditions arrayed in an ordinal scale. The resulting “lexical” index of electoral democracy, based partly on new data, covers all independent countries of the world from 1800 to 2013. It incorporates binary coding of its subcomponents, which are aggregated into an ordinal scale using a cumulative logic. In this fashion, we arrive at an index that performs a classificatory function—each level identifies a unique and theoretically meaningful regime-type—as well as a discriminating function.
This study attempts to reconcile competing positions in an important debate about the relationship between regime type and human development. We contend that this empirical relationship is contingent ...upon issues of conceptualization and measurement in democracy. First, the relationship is more likely to be perceived when democracy is measured in a nuanced fashion, taking account of gradations of democracy and autocracy. Second, some aspects of democracy - those associated with competitive elections - are more strongly associated with human development than others. Third, the components of electoral democracy interact in a reinforcing manner. Finally, the impact of democracy on human development is a distal relationship that depends upon a country's entire regime history. Our approach draws on several new datasets that interrogate change across a century, enhancing empirical leverage on this important question. To measure human development, we employ the Gapminder project, covering most sovereign countries from 1900 to 2012. To measure democracy, we draw on Varieties of Democracy data, which measure democracy in a highly differentiated fashion for most sovereign countries from 1900 to the present. An extensive set of analyses offer strong corroboration for the argument.
In the wake of the Cold War, democracy has gained the status of a mantra. Yet there is no consensus about how to conceptualize and measure regimes such that meaningful comparisons can be made through ...time and across countries. In this prescriptive article, we argue for a new approach to conceptualization and measurement. We first review some of the weaknesses among traditional approaches. We then lay out our approach, which may be characterized as historical,multidimensional,disaggregated, and transparent. We end by reviewing some of the payoffs such an approach might bring to the study of democracy.
Case study researchers use diverse methods to select their cases, a matter that has elicited considerable comment and no little consternation. Of all these methods, perhaps the most controversial is ...the crucial-case method, first proposed by Harry Eckstein several decades ago. Since Eckstein’s influential essay, the crucial-case approach has been used in a multitude of studies across several social science disciplines and has come to be recognized as a staple of the case study method. Yet the idea of any single case playing a crucial (or critical) role is not widely accepted. In this article, the method of the crucial case is explored, and a limited defense (somewhat less expansive than that envisioned by Eckstein) of that method is undertaken. A second method of case-selection, closely associated with the logic of the crucial case, is introduced: the pathway case.
This study revisits the task of case selection in case study research, proposing a new typology of strategies that is explicit, disaggregated, and relatively comprehensive. A secondary goal is to ...explore the prospects for case selection by algorithm, aka ex ante, automatic, quantitative, systematic, or model-based case selection. We lay out a suggested protocol and then discuss its viability. Our conclusion is that it is a valuable tool in certain circumstances, but should probably not determine the final choice of cases unless the chosen sample is medium-sized. Our third goal is to discuss the viability of medium-n samples for case study research, an approach closely linked to algorithmic case selection and occasionally practiced by case study researchers. We argue that medium-n samples occupy an unstable methodological position, lacking the advantages of efficiency promised by traditional, small-n case studies but also lacking the advantages of representativeness promised by large-n samples.
This paper aims to clarify the meaning, and explain the utility, of the case study method, a method often practiced but little understood. A “case study,” I argue, is best defined as an intensive ...study of a single unit with an aim to generalize across a larger set of units. Case studies rely on the same sort of covariational evidence utilized in non-case study research. Thus, the case study method is correctly understood as a particular way of defining cases, not a way of analyzing cases or a way of modeling causal relations. I show that this understanding of the subject illuminates some of the persistent ambiguities of case study work, ambiguities that are, to some extent, intrinsic to the enterprise. The travails of the case study within the discipline of political science are also rooted in an insufficient appreciation of the methodological tradeoffs that this method calls forth. This paper presents the familiar contrast between case study and non-case study work as a series of characteristic strengths and weaknesses—affinities—rather than as antagonistic approaches to the empirical world. In the end, the perceived hostility between case study and non-case study research is largely unjustified and, perhaps, deserves to be regarded as a misconception. Indeed, the strongest conclusion to arise from this methodological examination concerns the complementarity of single-unit and cross-unit research designs.
PDF
