Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Best practices in the development of historically oriented replication databases

Annual Review of Political Science

Volumn 13, Issue , 2010, Pages 37-59

  Lieberman, Evan S ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative historical analysis; Measurement; Methodology; Replication; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952909059     PISSN: 10942939     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.041007.155222     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Achen CH. 2002. Toward a new political methodology: microfoundations and ART. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 5:423-450
2. Achen CH, Snidal D. 1989. Rational deterrence theory and comparative case studies. World Polit. 41:144-169
3. Adcock R, Collier D. 2001. Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95:529-547
4. Bates RH, Greif A, Levi M, Rosenthal J-L,Weingast BR. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
5. Beck N. 2001. Time-series cross-section data: What have we learned in the past few years? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 4:271-293 (Pubitemid 33403106)
6. Benoit K, Laver M. 2007. Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Elect. Stud. 26:90-107
7. Boix C, Stokes SC. 2003. Endogenous democratization. World Polit. 55:517-549
8. Boix C, Stokes SC. 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
9. Bowman K, Lehoucq F, Mahoney J. 2005. Measuring political democracy: case expertise, data adequacy, and Central America. Comp. Polit. Stud. 38:939-970
10. Brady HE, Collier D, eds, 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Berkeley, CA: Rowman & Littlefield and Berkeley Public Policy Press
11. Brinks D, Coppedge M. 2006. Diffusion is no illusion: neighbor emulation in the third wave of democracy. Comp. Polit. Stud. 39:463-489
12. Center for International Development and Conflict Management. 2009. The Minorities At Risk (MAR) Project. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/
13. Collier D, Brady HE, Seawright J. 2004. Sources of leverage in causal inference: toward an alternative view of methodology. See Brady & Collier 2004, pp. 229-266
14. Collier D, Levitsky S. 1997. Democracy with adjectives: conceptual innovation in comparative research.World Polit. 49:430-451
15. Davenport C, Ball P. 2002. Views to a kill: exploring the implications of source selection in the case of Guatemalan state terror, 1977-1995. J. Confl. Resolut. 46:427-450
16. Davenport C. 2004. Minorities At Risk: Dataset Users Manual 030703. The Minorities At Risk (MAR) Project, Cent. Int. Dev. Confl. Manage., Univ. Maryland, Baltimore
17. Davenport C. 2007. State repression and political order. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 10:1-23
18. Freedom House. 2009. Annual Survey of Freedom, country ratings. http://www.freedomhouse.org
19. Geddes B. 1990. How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: selection bias in comparative politics. Polit. Anal. 2:131-150
20. Gerring J. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
21. Gerring J. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
22. Goemans H, Gleditsch K, Chiozza G. 2009. Introducing Archigos: a dataset of political leaders. J. Peace Res. 46:269-283
23. Herrera Y, Kapur D. 2007. Improving data quality: actors, incentives, and capabilities. Polit. Anal. 15:365
24. Herrnson PS. 1995. Replication, verification, secondary analysis, and data collection in political science. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 28:452-455
25. Hudson V, Caprioli M, Emmett C, et al. 2009. WomanStats. http://www.womanstats.org
26. King G. 1995. Replication, replication. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 28:444-452
27. King G, Keohane R,Verba S. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
28. Kiser E, Hechter M. 1991. The role of general theory in comparative-historical sociology. Am. J. Sociol. 97:1-30
29. Leeds BA. 2005. The Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions (ATOP) Project. http://atop.rice.edu/home
30. Lieberman E. 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99:435-452
31. Lieshout RH, Segers MLL, van der Vleuten AM. 2004. De Gaulle, Moravcsik, and The Choice for Europe: soft sources, weak evidence. J. Cold War Stud. 6:89-139
32. Lustick IS. 1996. History, historiography, and political science: multiple historical records and the problem of selection bias. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 90:605-618
33. Mahoney J, Goertz G. 2006. A tale of two cultures: contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Polit. Anal. 14:227-249
34. Mahoney J, Rueschemeyer D. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
35. Marshall M, Gurr T, Davenport C, Jaggers K. 2002. Polity IV, 1800-1999: comments on Munck andVerkuilen. Comp. Polit. Stud. 35:40-45
36. Marshall MG, Jaggers K. 2007. Polity IV Project: Dataset Users' Manual. Cent. Systemic Peace, George Mason Univ.
37. Marshall M, Jaggers K, Gurr T. 2009. Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2008. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/ polity4.htm
38. McBride DE. 2001. Abortion Politics,Women's Movements, and the Democratic State: a Comparative Study of State Feminism. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
39. McBride DE, Mazur AG. 2006. Building a (data) bank while crossing the bridge: RNGS strategies to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods. Presented at Conf. Br. J. Polit. Sci., London
40. McBride DE, Mazur AG, Outshoorn J, Lovenduski J, Guadagnini M. 2008. Research Network on Gender Politics and the State Project. http://libarts.wsu. edu/polisci/rngs/
41. Moravcsik A. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
42. Moravcsik A. 2010. Active footnotes and replicability in qualitative methods. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. In press
43. Munck GL, Verkuilen J. 2002. Measuring democracy: evaluating alternative indices. Comp. Polit. Stud. 35:5-34
44. Przeworski A, Alvarez ME, Cheibub JA, Limongi F. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Material Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
45. Przeworski A, Limongi F. 1997. Modernization: theories and facts. World Polit. 49:155-183
46. Śanchez-Cuenca I, de la Calle L. 2009. Domestic terrorism: the hidden side of political violence. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 12:31-49
47. Sartori G. 1970. Concept misformation in comparative politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 64:1033-1053
48. Skocpol T. 1984. Emerging agendas and recurrent themes in historical sociology. In Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, ed. T Skocpol, pp. 356-391 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
49. Skocpol T, Somers M. 1980. The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 22:174-197
50. Thies CG. 2002. A pragmatic guide to qualitative historical analysis in the study of international relations. Int. Stud. Perspect. 3:351-372
51. Trachtenberg M. 2006. The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
52. Uppsala Conflict Data Program. 2009. Uppsala Conflict Data Program Database. http://www.ucdp. uu.se/database
53. Vanhanen T. 2000. A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810-1998. J. Peace Res. 37:251-265
54. Wilson S, Butler D. 2007. A lot more to do: the promise and peril of panel data in political science. Polit. Anal. 15:101-123
55. Wood EJ. 2007. Field research. See Boix & Stokes 2007, pp. 123-146