Advertisement

Understanding Metropolitan Policies from Comparative–Interpretive Perspective

  • Carola FrickeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Geography book series (SPRINGERGEOGR)

Abstract

This chapter clarifies the methodological and epistemological choices contributing to understanding the change of metropolitan policies in a multilevel context. Therefore, the conceptual and theoretical framework introduced in the previous chapters represents points of departure by mapping out an understanding of the Europeanisation of metropolitan policies as involving circular processes of learning and reframing, emphasising the role of competing understandings of the metropolitan regions and related spatial concepts.

Keywords

Interpretive policy analysis Congruence analysis Comparative urbanism Qualitative methods 

References

  1. Aberbach JD, Rockman BA (2002) Conducting and coding elite interviews. APSC 35:673–676.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502001142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin A, Graham S (1997) The ordinary city. Trans Inst Br Geog 22:411–429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.1997.00411.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auerbach CF, Silverstein LB (2003) Qualitative data: an introduction to coding and analysis, 1st edn. Qualitative studies in psychology. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Beamer G (2016) Elite interviews and state politics research. State Polit Policy Q 2:86–96.  https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000200200106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blatter J, Blume T (2008) Co-variation and causal process tracing revisted: clarifying new directions in case study methodology. Qual Methods 29–34Google Scholar
  6. Blatter J, Janning F, Wagemann C (2007) Qualitative Politikanalyse: Eine Einführung in Forschungsansätze und Methoden, 1st edn, vol 44. VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss., WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  7. Böhme K, Richardson T, Dabinett G, Jensen OB (2004) Values in a vacuum? Towards an integrated multi-level analysis of the governance of European space. European briefing. Eur Plan Stud 12:1175–1188Google Scholar
  8. Bohnsack R (2014) Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung: Einführung in qualitative Methoden, 9., überarb. und erw. Aufl. UTB, 8242: Erziehungswissenschaft, Sozialwissenschaft. Budrich, Opladen, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  9. Brenner N (2003) Stereotypes, archetypes, and prototypes: three uses of superlatives in contemporary urban studies. City Community 2:205–216.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6040.00051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brenner N (2004) New state spaces: urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brenner N, Schmid C (2015) Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City 19:151–182.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1014712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bunnell TIM, Maringanti A (2010) Practising urban and regional research beyond metrocentricity. Int J Urban Reg Res 34:415–420.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00988.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Byrnes JP (1992) Categorizing and combining theories of cognitive development and learning. Educ Psychol Rev 4:309–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell S (2003) Case studies in planning: comparative advantages and the problem of generalization. www.caup.umich.edu/workingpapers
  15. Carmel E (1999) Concepts, context and discourse in a comparative case study. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2:141–150.  https://doi.org/10.1080/136455799295104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Checkel JT (2001) Social construction and European integration. In: Christiansen T, Jørgensen KE, Wiener A (eds) The social construction of Europe. Sage, London, Thousand Oaks, Calif, pp 50–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Copper S (1986) Do you know what I mean? Problems in the methodology of cross-cultural comparison. In: Masser I, Williams RH (eds) Learning from other countries: the cross-national dimension in urban policy-making. Geo Books, Norwich, UK, pp 65–75Google Scholar
  18. Denters B, Mossberger K (2006) Building blocks for a methodology for comparative urban political research. Urban Affairs Rev 41:550–571.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087405282607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dryzek J (1982) Policy analysis as a hermeneutic activity. Policy Sci 14:309–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dühr S (2007) The visual language of spatial planning: exploring cartographic representations for spatial planning in Europe. Routledge, London, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dühr S (2015) Analysing cartographic representations in spatial planning. In: Silva EA, Healey P, Harris N (eds) The Routledge handbook of planning research methods. Routledge, New York, pp 192–202Google Scholar
  22. Fairclough N (2003) Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research. Routledge, London, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E (2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods 5:80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer F (1998) Beyond empiricism: policy inquiry in post positivist perspective. Policy Stud J 26:129–146.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01929.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer F (2003) Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford [u.a.]Google Scholar
  26. Fischer F (2007) Policy analysis in critical perspective: the epistemics of discursive practices. Crit Policy Stud 1:97–109.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2007.9518510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fischer F, Forester J (eds) (1993) The Argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, Durham, N.CGoogle Scholar
  28. Flick U (2006) Experteninterviews. In: Flick U (ed) Qualitative Evaluationsforschung: Konzepte - Methoden - Umsetzung, Originalausg. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg, pp 218–220Google Scholar
  29. Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12:219–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Freeman R, Maybin J (2011) Documents, practices and policy. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract 7:155–170.  https://doi.org/10.1332/174426411X579207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. George AL, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. BCSIA studies in international security. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  32. Gerring J (2007) Case study research: principles and practices. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Hajer MA (2005) Coalitions, practices, and meanings in environmental politics: from acid rain to BSE. In: Howarth DR, Torfing J (eds) Discourse theory in European politics: identity, policy, and governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York, pp 297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hajer MA (2006) Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In: van den Brink M, Metze T (eds) Words matter in policy and planning: discourse theory and method in the social sciences. Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap; Netherlands Graduate School of Urban and Regional Research, Utrecht, pp 65–74Google Scholar
  35. Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) (2003) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Reprinted. Theories of institutional design. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Hantrais L (1999) Contextualization in cross-national comparative research. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2:93–108.  https://doi.org/10.1080/136455799295078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haverland M (2010) If similarity is the challenge—congruence analysis should be part of the answer. Eur Polit Sci 9:68–73.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2009.47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heinelt H, Bertrana X (eds) (2011) The second tier of local government in Europe: provinces, counties, départements and Landkreise in comparison. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Jazeel T, McFarlane C (2007) Responsible learning: cultures of knowledge production and the north-south divide. Antipode 39:781–789.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007.00559.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kantor P, Savitch HV (2005) How to study comparative urban development politics: a research note. Int J Urban Reg Res 29:135–151.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00575.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kelle U, Kluge S (2008) Vom Einzelfall zum Typus: Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung, 2., aktualis. Aufl. Qualitative Sozialforschung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  42. Leech BL (2002) Asking questions: techniques for semistructured interviews. APSC 35:665–668.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502001129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leitner H, Sheppard E (2016) Provincializing critical urban theory: extending the ecosystem of possibilities. Int J Urban Reg 40:228–235.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McFarlane C (2010) The Comparative City: Knowledge, Learning, Urbanism. Inter J Urban Reg Res, 34:725–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00917.x
  45. Meuser M, Nagel U (2011) Experteninterview. In: Bohnsack R, Marotzki W, Meuser M (eds) Hauptbegriffe Qualitative Sozialforschung. Leske + Budrich, Opladen, pp 57–58Google Scholar
  46. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1984) Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Educ Res 13:20–30.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013005020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  48. Münch S (2010) Integration durch Wohnungspolitik? Zum Umgang mit ethnischer Segregation im europäischen Vergleich, 1st edn. VS Verl. für Sozialwiss, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  49. Münch S (2015) Interpretative policy-analyse: Eine Einführung, Aufl. 2016. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  50. Nijman J (2015) The theoretical imperative of comparative urbanism: a commentary on ‘cities beyond compare?’ by Jamie Peck. Reg Stud 49:183–186.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.986908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nullmeier F (2012) Interpretative Policy-Forschung und das Erklärungsproblem: Oder: Wie kann man diskursiven Wandel erklären? In: Egner B, Haus M, Terizakis G (eds) Regieren: Festschrift für Hubert Heinelt. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peck J (2015) Cities beyond compare? Reg Stud 49:160–182.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.980801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Phillips N, Hardy C (2002) Discourse analysis: investigating processes of social construction. Qualitative research methods, vol 50. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. Pickvance CG (1986) Comparative urban analysis and assumptions about causality. Int J Urban Reg Res 10:162–184.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1986.tb00010.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson J (2006) Ordinary cities: between modernity and development. Routledge, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Robinson J (2011a) Cities in a world of cities: the comparative gesture. Int J Urban Reg Res 35:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00982.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robinson J (2011b) Comparisons: colonial or cosmopolitan? Singap J Trop Geogr 32:125–140.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2011.00423.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robinson J (2014) Introduction to a virtual issue on comparative urbanism. Int J Urban Reg Res n/a-n/a.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12171
  59. Roy A (2011) Slumdog cities: rethinking subaltern urbanism. Int J Urban Reg Res 35:223–238.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01051.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saurugger S (2013) Constructivism and public policy approaches in the EU: from ideas to power games. J Eur Public Policy 20:888–906.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.781826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schwartz-Shea P (2006) Judging quality: evaluative criteria and epistemic communities. In: Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P (eds) Interpretation and method: empirical research methods and the interpretive turn, 2nd ed. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y, pp 89–113Google Scholar
  62. Schwartz-Shea P, Yanow D (2012) Interpretive research design: concepts and processes. Routledge series on interpretive methods, Routledge, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  63. Scott AJ, Storper M (2015) The nature of cities: the scope and limits of urban theory. Int J Urban Reg 39:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sellers JM (2005) Re-placing the nation: an agenda for comparative urban politics. Urban Affairs Rev 40:419–445.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087404272673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sheppard E, Leitner H, Maringanti A, Maringanti A (2013) Provincializing global urbanism: a manifesto. Urban Geogr 34:893–900.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.807977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Soss J (2006) Talking our way to meaningful explanations: a practice-centred view of interviewing for interpretive research. In: Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P (eds) Interpretation and method: empirical research methods and the interpretive turn, 2nd ed. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y., pp 127–149Google Scholar
  67. St. Pierre EA, Jackson AY (2014) Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qual Inq 20:715–719.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414532435
  68. van Duinen L (2004) Planning imagery: the emergence and development of new planning concepts in Dutch national spatial policy. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Academische ProefschriftGoogle Scholar
  69. Wagenaar H (2011) Meaning in action: interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NYGoogle Scholar
  70. Ward K (2008) Editorial—toward a comparative (re)turn in urban studies? Some reflections. Urban Geogr 29:405–410.  https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.29.5.405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ward K (2010) Towards a relational comparative approach to the study of cities. Prog Hum Geogr 34:471–487.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509350239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weiss RS (1995) Learning from strangers: the art and method of qualitative interview studies, 1st Free Press, pbk edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. Yanow D (1996) How does a policy mean?: Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  74. Yanow D (2000) Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Qualitative research methods, vol 47. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CalifGoogle Scholar
  75. Yanow D (2003) Accessing local knowledge. In: Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society, Reprinted. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 228–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yanow D (2006) Thinking interpretively: philosophical presuppositions and the human sciences. In: Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P (eds) Interpretation and method: empirical research methods and the interpretive turn, 2nd edn. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp 5–26Google Scholar
  77. Yanow D (2014) Interpretive analysis and comparative research. In: Engeli I, Allison CR (eds) Comparative policy studies: conceptual and methodological challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, [Basingstoke], pp 131–159Google Scholar
  78. Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P (eds) (2006) Interpretation and method: empirical research methods and the interpretive turn, 2nd edn. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NYGoogle Scholar
  79. Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human GeographyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburg im BreisgauGermany

Personalised recommendations