Data usage in quantitative comparative politics

Political Research Quarterly

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 417-433

  Schedler, Andreas ^a   Mudde, Cas ^b  

^a CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN Y DOCENCIA ECONÓMICAS   (Mexico)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Comparative politics; Cross national datasets; Quantitative methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953085152     PISSN: 10659129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1065912909357414     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Ahram, Ariel I. 2009. The challenge of conceptual stretching in mixed method research. Political Concepts 31, IPSA Committee on Concepts and Methods, Working Paper Series. www.concepts-methods.org.
2. Bartels, Larry M., and Henry E. Brady. 1993. The state of quantitative political methodology. In The state of the discipline II, ed. Ada W. Finifter, 121-59. Washington, DC: APSA.
3. Benoit, Kenneth R. 2005. How qualitative research really counts. Qualitative Methods 3 (1): 9-12.
4. Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tanenbaum. 2001. Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945-1998. With Richard C. Fording, Derek J. Hearl, Hee Min Kim, Michael McDonald, and Silvia Mendez. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5. Byrman, Alan. 2004. Social research methods. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6. Cox, Robert Henry. 2001. The social construction of an imperative: Why welfare reform happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but not in Germany. World Politics 53:463-98.
7. Diehl, Paul F. 1992. What are they fighting for? The importance of issues in international conflict research. Journal of Peace Research 29 (3): 333-44.
8. Gerring, John. 2001. Social science methodology: A criterial framework. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10. Levitsky, Steven. 2001. Organization and labor-based party adaptation: The transformation of Argentine Peronism in comparative perspective. World Politics 54:27-56.
11. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 2008. Is comparative politics methodologically exceptional? APSA-CP Newsletter 19 (1): 11-12.
12. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682-93.
13. Mackie, Thomas T., and Richard Rose. 1991. The international almanac of electoral history. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan.
14. Mahoney, James. 2007. Debating the state of comparative politics: Views from qualitative research. Comparative Political Studies 40 (1): 32-38.
15. Morrison, Minion K.C. 2004. Political parties in Ghana through four republics: A path to democratic consolidation. Comparative Politics 36 (4): 421-42.
16. Munck, Gerardo L., and Richard Snyder. 2007. Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals. Comparative Political Studies 40 (1): 5-31.
17. Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2002. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Peters, B. Guy. 1998. Comparative politics: Theory and methods. New York: New York University Press.
19. Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek Masoud. 2004. Problems and methods in the study of politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20. Staton, Jeffrey K. 2004. Judicial policy implementation in Mexico City and Mérida. Comparative Politics 37 (1): 41-60.
21. Steinmo, Sven. 1989. Political institutions and tax policy in the United States, Sweden, and Britain. World Politics 41:500-535.
22. Wampler, Brian, and Leonardo Avritzer. 2004. Participatory publics: Civil society and new institutions in democratic Brazil. Comparative Politics 36 (3): 291-312.