Quality & Quantity

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 2617–2632 | Cite as

Qualitative variations: the sources of divergent qualitative methodological approaches

Article

Abstract

Epistemological differences between positivists and interpretivists and methodological divisions between quantitative and qualitative scholars elide very important divisions within qualitative methods based on ontology. These differences can lead qualitative methodologists to make conflicting prescriptions and embrace incompatible standards. Though divergent standards may divide qualitative methodologists, what unite them are similar tools.

Keywords

Qualitative methods Set theory Interpretive methods 

References

  1. Adcock, R.: Generalization in comparative and historical social science: the difference that interpretivism makes. In: Yanow, D.A.P.S.-S. (ed.) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, pp. 50–66. ME Sharpe Inc., Armonk, NY (2006)Google Scholar
  2. Adcock, R., Collier, D.: Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95(3), 529–546 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartels, L.: Some unfulfilled promises of quantitative imperialism. In: Brady, H.E., Collier, D. (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn, pp. 83–88. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD (2010)Google Scholar
  4. Bendix, R.: Review of book ‘Political order in changing societies’. Polit. Sci. Quart. 86(1), 168–170 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bevir, M., Kedar, A.: Concept formation in political science: an anti-naturalist critique of qualitative methodology. Perspect. Polit. 6(3), 503–517 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady, H.E.: Doing good and doing better: how far does the quantitative template get us? In: Brady, H.E., Collier, D. (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn, pp. 67–82. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD (2010)Google Scholar
  7. Brady, H.E., Collier, D. (eds.): Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD (2004)Google Scholar
  8. Brady, H.E., Collier, D. (eds.): Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD (2010)Google Scholar
  9. Brady, H.E., Collier, D., Seawright, J.: Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In: Brady, H.E., Collier, D. (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn, pp. 15–32. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD (2010)Google Scholar
  10. Collier, D., Brady, H.E., Seawright, J.: Critiques, responses, and trade-offs: drawing together the debate. In: Brady, H.E., Collier, D. (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn, pp. 135–160. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD (2010)Google Scholar
  11. Collier, D., Mahon, J. E.: Conceptual ‘stretching’ revisited: adapting categories in comparative analysis. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 87(4), 845–855 (1993)Google Scholar
  12. Elman, C.: Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. Int. Organiz. 59(02), 293–326 (2005). doi:10.1017/s0020818305050101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. George, A.L., Bennett, A.: Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2005)Google Scholar
  14. Gerring, J.: Social Science Methodology: a Criterial Framework. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerring, J.: Social Science Methodology: a Unified Framework, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  16. Goertz, G., Levy, J. (Eds.): Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals. Routledge, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  17. Goertz, G., Mahoney, J.: A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hawkesworth, M.: Contending conceptions of science and politics: methodology and the constitution of the political. In: Yanow, D., Schwartz-Shea, P. (eds.) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, pp. 27–49. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY (2006)Google Scholar
  19. Huntington, S.: Political Order in Changing Societies. Yale University Press, New Haven (1968)Google Scholar
  20. Kebschull, H.: Review of political order in changing societies. J. Polit. 31(3), 841–843 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King, G., Keohane, R.O., Verba, S.: Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)Google Scholar
  22. Klotz, A., Lynch, C.: Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY (2007)Google Scholar
  23. Lieberman, E.: Nested analysis as a mixed method strategy for comparative research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99(3), 435–452 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mahoney, J., Kimball, E., Koivu, K.L.: The logic of historical explanation in the social sciences. Compar. Polit. Stud. 42(1), 114–146 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  26. Moore, B.: Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Beacon, Boston (1966)Google Scholar
  27. Ragin, C.C.: Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2000)Google Scholar
  28. Ragin, C.C.: Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwartz-Shea, P.: Judging quality: evaluative criteria and epistemic communities. In: Yanow, D., Schwartz-Shea, P. (eds.) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY (2006)Google Scholar
  30. Seawright, J., Gerring, J.: Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Polit. Res. Quart. 61(2), 294–308 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. Skocpol, T.: States and Social Revolutions: a Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thelen, K.: How Institutions Evolve. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tilly, C.: Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992. Blackwell, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  34. Wedeen, L.: Peripheral Visions: Public, Power and Performance in Yemen. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weldes, J.: Constructing National Interests: the United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN (1999)Google Scholar
  36. Yanow, D., Schwartz-Shea, P. (eds.): Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Florida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations