1932

Abstract

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 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158
2017-05-11
2024-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/20/1/annurev-polisci-092415-024158.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ahmed A, Sil R. 2012. When multi-method research subverts methodological pluralism—or, why we still need single-method research. Perspect. Polit. 10:4935–53 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alesina A, Glaeser E, Sacerdote B. 2001. Why doesn't the US have a European-style welfare state?. Brookings Pap. Econ. Act. 2:187–277 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beach D, Pedersen RM. 2013. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  4. Beck N. 2006. Is causal-process observation an oxymoron?. Polit. Anal. 14:3347–52 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beck N. 2010. Causal process “observations”: oxymoron or (fine) old wine. Polit. Anal. 18:4499–505 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennett A. 2008. Process tracing: a Bayesian approach. See Box-Steffensmeier et al. 2008 702–21
  7. Bennett A. 2015. Disciplining our conjectures: systematizing process tracing with Bayesian analysis. See Bennett & Checkel 2015 276–98
  8. Bennett A, Checkel JT. 2015. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Bennett A, Elman C. 2006a. Complex causal relations and case study methods: the example of path dependence. Polit. Anal. 14:3250–67 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bennett A, Elman C. 2006b. Qualitative research: recent developments in case study methods. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 9:455–76 [Google Scholar]
  11. Blatter J, Haverland M. 2012. Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  12. Boas TC. 2007. Conceptualizing continuity and change: the composite-standard model of path dependence. J. Theor. Polit. 19:133–54 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boix C. 1999. Setting the rules of the game: the choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 93:3609–24 [Google Scholar]
  14. Box-Steffensmeier J, Brady H, Collier D. 2008. Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Brady HE. 2010. Data-set observations versus causal-process observations: the 2000 U.S. presidential election. See Brady & Collier 2010 237–42
  16. Brady HE, Collier D. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
  17. Brady HE, Collier D. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  18. Brewer J, Hunter A. 2006. Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  19. Caporaso J. 2009. Is there a quantitative-qualitative divide in comparative politics. ? In The SAGE Handbook of Comparative Politics T Landman, N Robinson 67–83 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  20. Chattopadhyay R, Duflo E. 2004. Women as policy makers: evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica 72:51409–43 [Google Scholar]
  21. Collier D. 2011. Understanding process tracing. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 44:4823–30 [Google Scholar]
  22. Collier D, Elman C. 2008. Qualitative and Multimethod Research: Organizations, Publications, and Reflections on Integration See Box-Steffensmeier et al. 2008 779–95 [Google Scholar]
  23. Collier D, Gerring J. 2009. Concepts and Method in Social Science: The Tradition of Giovanni Sartori New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  24. Collier D, LaPorte J, Seawright J. 2012. Putting typologies to work: concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Polit. Res. Q. 65:1217–32 [Google Scholar]
  25. Crandell JL, Voils CI, Chang YK, Sandelowski M. 2011. Bayesian data augmentation methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research findings. Qual. Quant. 45:653–69 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dunning T. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Eckstein H. 1975. Case studies and theory in political science. Handbook of Political Science. Political Science: Scope and Theory 7 FI Greenstein, NW Polsby 94–137 Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley [Google Scholar]
  28. Elman C. 2005. Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. Int. Organ. 59:2293–326 [Google Scholar]
  29. Elman C, Kapiszewski D. 2014. Data access and research transparency in the qualitative tradition. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 47:143–47 [Google Scholar]
  30. Elman C, Kapiszewski D, Vinuela L. 2010. Qualitative data archiving: rewards and challenges. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 43:123–27 [Google Scholar]
  31. Epstein LD. 1964. A comparative study of Canadian parties. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 58:46–59 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fairfield T. 2013. Going where the money is: strategies for taxing economic elites in unequal democracies. World Dev. 47:42–57 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fairfield T. 2015. Private Wealth and Public Revenue in Latin America: Business Power and Tax Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Fenno RF Jr. 1977. U.S. House members in their constituencies: an exploration. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 71:3883–917 [Google Scholar]
  35. Fenno RF Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts Boston, MA: Little, Brown [Google Scholar]
  36. Ferwerda J, Miller N. 2014. Political devolution and resistance to foreign rule: a natural experiment. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 108:3642–60 [Google Scholar]
  37. Feyerabend P. 1975. Against Method London: New Left Books [Google Scholar]
  38. Friedman M, Schwartz A. 1963. A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Garfinkel H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [Google Scholar]
  40. George AL. 1979. Case studies and theory development: the method of structured, focused comparison. Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy PG Lauren 3–68 New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  41. George AL, Bennett A. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  42. George AL, McKeown TJ. 1985. Case studies and theories of organizational decision-making. Advances in Information Processing in Organizations RF Coulam, RA Smith 21–58 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Gerring J. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  44. Gerring J. 2012. Mere description. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 42:4721–46 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gerring J. 2017. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gerring J, Cojocaru L. 2016. Selecting cases for intensive analysis: a diversity of goals and methods. Sociol. Methods Res. 45:3392–423 [Google Scholar]
  47. Gerring J, McDermott R. 2007. An experimental template for case-study research. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51:3688–701 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gill CJ, Sabin L, Schmid CH. 2005. Why clinicians are natural Bayesians. BMJ 330:1080–83 [Google Scholar]
  49. Glassner B, Moreno JD. 1989. The Qualitative-Quantitative Distinction in the Social Sciences Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer [Google Scholar]
  50. Goertz G. 2005. Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  51. Goertz G. 2017. Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Selecting Cases: The Research Triad Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  52. Goertz G, Mahoney J. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  53. Grimmer J, Stewart BM. 2013. Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Polit. Anal. 21:3267–97 [Google Scholar]
  54. Hall PA. 2003. Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative politics. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences J Mahoney, D Rueschemeyer 373–404 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  55. Hall PA. 2006. Systematic process analysis: when and how to use it. Eur. Manag. Rev. 3:24–31 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hammersley M. 1992. Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide. Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research J Brannen Aldershot, UK: Avebury [Google Scholar]
  57. Harrits GS. 2011. More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 5:2150–66 [Google Scholar]
  58. Herron MC, Quinn KM. 2016. A careful look at modern case selection methods. Sociol. Methods Res. 45:3458–92 [Google Scholar]
  59. Humphreys M, Jacobs AM. 2015. Mixing methods: a Bayesian approach. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 109:4653–73 [Google Scholar]
  60. Humphreys M, Jacobs AM. 2018. Integrated Inferences: A Bayesian Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Causal Inference Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
  61. Jacobs A. 2015. Process tracing the effects of ideas. See Bennett & Checkel 2015 41–73
  62. Kapiszewski D, MacLean LM, Read BL. 2015. Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  63. Karl TL. 1997. The Paradox of Plenty: Oil Booms and Petro-States Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  64. King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Kocher M, Monteiro N. 2015. What's in a line? Natural experiments and the line of demarcation in WWII occupied France Work. Pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Yale Univ. [Google Scholar]
  66. Kreuzer M. 2010. Historical knowledge and quantitative analysis: the case of the origins of proportional representation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104:369–92 [Google Scholar]
  67. Levy JS. 2007. Qualitative methods and cross-method dialogue in political science. Comp. Polit. Stud. 40:2196–214 [Google Scholar]
  68. Levy JS. 2008. Case studies: types, designs, and logics of inference. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 25:1–18 [Google Scholar]
  69. Lieberman ES. 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99:3435–52 [Google Scholar]
  70. Lieberman ES. 2010. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: best practices in the development of historically oriented replication databases. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 13:37–59 [Google Scholar]
  71. Lieberman ES. 2016. Can the biomedical research cycle be a model for political science?. Perspect. Polit. 141054–66 [Google Scholar]
  72. Lijphart A. 1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 65:682–93 [Google Scholar]
  73. Lohmann S. 2007. The trouble with multi-methodism. Newsl. APSA Organ. Sect. Qual. Methods 5:113–17 [Google Scholar]
  74. Lynd RS, Lynd HM. 1956 (1929). Middletown: A Study in American Culture. New York: Harcourt Brace [Google Scholar]
  75. Mahoney J. 2010. After KKV: the new methodology of qualitative research. World Polit. 62:1120–47 [Google Scholar]
  76. Mahoney J. 2012. The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociol. Methods Res. 41:4566–90 [Google Scholar]
  77. Mahoney J, Goertz G. 2006. A tale of two cultures: contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Polit. Anal. 14:227–49 [Google Scholar]
  78. Mahoney J, Sweet Vanderpoel R. 2015. Set diagrams and qualitative research. Comp. Polit. Stud. 48:165–100 [Google Scholar]
  79. Mahoney J, Thelen K. 2015. Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  80. Mansfield ED, Snyder J. 2005. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  81. McKeown TJ. 1999. Case studies and the statistical world view. Int. Organ. 53:161–90 [Google Scholar]
  82. McLaughlin E. 1991. Oppositional poverty: the quantitative/qualitative divide and other dichotomies. Sociol. Rev. 39:292–308 [Google Scholar]
  83. Mill JS. 1843/1872. A System of Logic. London: Longmans, Green, 8th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  84. Moore B Jr.. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, MA: Beacon Press [Google Scholar]
  85. Morgan M. 2012. Case studies: one observation or many? Justification or discovery?. Philos. Sci. 79:5655–66 [Google Scholar]
  86. Page SE. 2006. Essay: path dependence. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 1:87–115 [Google Scholar]
  87. Paluck EL. 2010. The promising integration of qualitative methods and field experiments. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 628:59–71 [Google Scholar]
  88. Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  89. Pincus S. 2011. 1688: The First Modern Revolution New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  90. Platt J. 1992. “Case study” in American methodological thought. Curr. Sociol. 40:117–48 [Google Scholar]
  91. Posner D. 2004. The political salience of cultural difference: why Chewas and Tumbukas are allies in Zambia and adversaries in Malawi. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98:4529–46 [Google Scholar]
  92. Ray JL. 1993. Wars between democracies: rare or nonexistent?. Int. Interact. 18:251–76 [Google Scholar]
  93. Reichenbach H. 1938. Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  94. Reiss J. 2009. Causation in the social sciences: evidence, inference, and purpose. Philos. Soc. Sci. 39:120–40 [Google Scholar]
  95. Rihoux B. 2013. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), anno 2013: reframing the comparative method's seminal statements. Swiss Polit. Sci. Rev. 19:2233–45 [Google Scholar]
  96. Roberts C. 1996. The Logic of Historical Explanation University Park: Pa. State Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  97. Rohlfing I. 2012. Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework London: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  98. Romer CD, Romer DH. 2010. The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks. Am. Econ. Rev. 100:763–801 [Google Scholar]
  99. Rosenau PM. 1992. Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  100. Schatz E. 2009. Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  101. Schimmelfennig F. 2015. Efficient process tracing: analyzing the causal mechanisms of European integration. See Bennett & Checkel 2015 98–125
  102. Schwartz H, Jacobs J. 1979. Qualitative Sociology: A Method to the Madness New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  103. Seawright J. 2016a. The case for selecting cases that are deviant or extreme on the independent variable. Sociol. Methods Res. 45:3493–525 [Google Scholar]
  104. Seawright J. 2016b. Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  105. Seawright J, Gerring J. 2008. Case-selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Polit. Res. Q. 61:2294–308 [Google Scholar]
  106. Shapiro I, Smith R, Masoud T. 2004. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  107. Shweder RA. 1996. Quanta and qualia: What is the “object” of ethnographic method?. Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry R Jessor, A Colby, RA Shweder 175–82 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  108. Sil R. 2000. The division of labor in social science research: unified methodology or “organic solidarity”?. Polity 32:4499–531 [Google Scholar]
  109. Skocpol T. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  110. Skocpol T, Somers M. 1980. The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 22:2147–97 [Google Scholar]
  111. Snow CP. 1993 (1959). The Two Cultures Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  112. Strauss A, Corbin J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  113. Van Evera S. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  114. Waldner D. 2012. Process tracing and causal mechanisms. Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science H Kincaid 65–84 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  115. Waldner D. 2015a. Process tracing and qualitative causal inference. Secur. Stud. 24:2239–50 [Google Scholar]
  116. Waldner D. 2015b. What makes process tracing good? Causal mechanisms, causal inference, and the completeness standard in comparative politics. See Bennett & Checkel 2015 126–52
  117. Walter B. 2002. Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  118. Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P. 2013. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-092415-024158
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error