The qualitative foundations of political science methodology

Perspectives on Politics

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 855-866

  Thomas, George ^a  

^a WILLIAMS COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645156147     PISSN: 15375927     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1537592705050486     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Adcock, Robert and David Collier. 2001. Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95 (3): 529-46.
2. Bennett, Andrew. 2003. A Lakatosian reading of Lakatos: What can we salvage from the hard core? In Progress in international relations theory, ed. Colin Elman and Mirhiam Fendius Elman, 455-94. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Bennett, Andrew, Aharon Barth, and Kenneth Rutherford. 2003. Do we preach what we practice? A survey of methods in political science journals and curricula. PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (3): 373-78.
4. Blyth, Mark. 2002a. Great transformations: Economic ideas in the twentieth century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. _. 2002b. Institutions and ideas. In Theory and methods in political science, ed. David Marsh and Gary Stoker, 293-310. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
6. _. 2003. Structures do not come with an instruction sheet: Interests, ideas, and progress in political science. Perspectives on Politics 1 (4): 695-706.
7. Bridges, Amy. 2000. Path dependence, sequence, history, theory. Studies in American Political Development 14 (1): 109-12.
8. Caporaso, James A. 1995. Research design, falsification, and the qualitative-quantitative divide. American Political Science Review 89 (2): 457-60.
9. Ceaser, James W. 1990. Liberal democracy and political science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10. Collier, David. 1995. Translating quantitative methods for qualitative researchers: The case of selection bias. American Political Science Review 89 (2): 461-66.
11. Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case study and theory in political science. In Handbook of political science, vol. 7, ed. Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, 79-138. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12. Elman, Colin, and Miriam Fendius Elman. 2003a. Lessons from Lakatos. In Progress in international relations theory, ed. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, 21-68. Cambridge: MIT Press.
13. Elman, Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman, ed. 2003b. Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the field. Cambridge: MIT Press.
14. Gerring, John. 2003. APD from a methodological point of view. Studies in American Political Development 17 (1): 82-102.
15. Green, Donald P. and Ian Shapiro. 1996. The pathologies of rational choice theory: A critique of applications in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
16. Hall, Peter. 2003. Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research. In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, ed. Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, 373-404. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. 1999. The Federalist papers. New York: Mentor Books.
18. Jervis, Robert. 1998. System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
19. _. 2000. Timing and interaction in politics: A comment on Pierson. Studies in American Political Development 14 (2): 93-100.
20. King, Gary. 1995. Replication, replication. PS: Political Science and Politics 28 (3): 443-99.
21. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
22. _. 1995. The importance of research design in political science. American Political Science Review 89 (2): 475-81.
23. Laitin, David. D. 1995. Disciplining political science. American Political Science Review 89 (2): 454-56.
24. _. 2003. The Perestroikan challenge to social science. Politics and Society 31 (1): 163-85.
25. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682-93.
26. Mahoney, James. 1999. Nominal, ordinal, and narrative appraisal in macrocausal analysis. American Journal of Sociology 104 (4): 1154-96.
27. _. 2003. Strategies of causal assessment in comparative historical analysis. In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, eds., James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 337-72. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Mahoney, James, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds. 2003. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Mansfield, Harvey, Jr. 1990. Social science versus the Constitution. In Confronting the Constitution, ed. Allan Bloom, 411-36. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press.
30. Pierson, Paul. 2000a. Not just what, but when: Timing and sequence in political processes. Studies in American Political Development 14 (2): 72-92.
31. _. 2000b. Increasing returns, path dependence and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251-67.
32. _. 2003. Big, slow-moving, and . . . invisible. In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, ed., James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 177-207. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. _. 2004. Politics in time: history, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
34. Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35. _. 2004. Turning the tables: How case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, eds. David Collier and Henry Brady. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
36. Rogowski, Ronald. 1995. The role of theory and anomaly in social-scientific inference. American Political Science Review 89 (2): 467-70.
37. Sartori, Giovanni. 1984. Guidelines for concept analysis. In Social science concepts: A systematic analysis, ed. Giovanni Sartori, 15-85. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
38. Shapiro, Ian. 2004. Problems, methods, and theories in the study of politics, or: What's wrong with political science and what to do about it. In Problems and methods in the study of politics, eds. Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, 19-41. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Skocpol, Theda, and Margaret Somers. 1980. The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (2): 174-97.
40. Skowronek, Stephen. 1997. The politics presidents make: Leadership from John Adams to George Bush. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
41. _. 2003. What's wrong with APD? Studies in American Political Development 17 (1): 107-10.
42. Skowronek, Stephen, and Karen Orren. 2004. The search for American political development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Smith, Rogers M. 1996. Science, non-science, and politics. In The historic turn in human sciences, ed., Terrance J. McDonald, 119-59. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
44. _. 2003a. Substance and methods in APD research. Studies in American Political Development 17(1): 111-15.
45. _. 2003b. Progress and poverty in political science. PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (3): 395-96.
46. Tarrow, Sidney. 1995. Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide in political science. American Political Science Review 89 (2): 471-74.
47. Thelen, Kathleen. 2000. Timing and temporality in the analysis of institutional evolution and change. Studies in American Political Development 14 (1): 101-8.