Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Political Science Research on China: Making the Most of Diversity

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article aims at stimulating debate on the future development of political science research in and on China by bringing into clearer view the diversity of social science research in the West. It argues that far from monolithic, political science is itself engaged in a broad controversy on common goals and shared standards. Secondly, addressing international students of Chinese politics the article observes that we are currently witnessing a transformation of the field as we experience a slight shift toward more quantitative work. However, those China scholars working in a qualitative tradition should not see this as a hostile takeover of the field. Rather they should take this as a stimulating opportunity to employ more refined methodologies from within their own tradition as well as engage in multi-method research. The challenge is to make the most of diversity and to engage in fruitful cross-cultural dialogue based on respect for each other’s viewpoints. Three major divides need to be bridged: between qualitative and quantitative approaches, between political science and area studies as well as between Chinese and Western scholars.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Deng Zhenglai, “The Development of China’s Social Sciences: Retrospect and Prospect (1978–2008),” unpublished conference paper.

  2. For instance see Wen [1]; Wang [2].

  3. The debate on the applicability of Western concepts in non-Western context has a long tradition starting with Sartori’s seminal contribution, see Sartori [3].

  4. Alternatively, Sartori, op. cit., would argue that such “concept stretching” resulted from errors in “climbing and descending the ladder of abstraction.” This is a general danger of the comparative method, but one, I agree with Sartori, that can in principle be mitigated.

  5. The authors discuss differences in ten areas: approaches to explanation, conceptions of causation, multivariate explanations, equifinality, scope and causal generalization, case selection, weighting observations, substantively important cases. See ibid. More recently, even a tripartite taxonomy has been advanced distinguishing between quantitative, qualitative and interpretive approaches; Yanow [5].

  6. An observation is defined as “one measure of one dependent variable on one unit (and for as many explanatory variable measures as are available on that same unit).” See ibid., 217–228.

  7. Munck [28], op. cit., 105–121 (here: 112–113) and more generally on “concept stretching” Sartori, op. cit.

  8. McKweon [29], op. cit., 139–167.

  9. Mahoney/Goertz, op. cit., 230 (italics in original).

  10. Ibid., 238.

  11. Goertz, op. cit., 223.

  12. Pickel et al. [30] op. cit, 9–26.

  13. Mayring [10]. Mayring acknowledges that this ideal is often not adhered to by qualitative researchers themselves, particularly as they too tend to specialize in one method.

  14. Bennett/Elman, op. cit., 115.

  15. Knoblauch et al. [14]. Cf. Flick et al. [15].

  16. Zhong [20], Fudan University National Institute of Advanced Studies in Social Sciences; Lauth and Winkler [31], op. cit., 37–69.

  17. It could be added that this discomfort among practitioners is anything but new, see Sartori, op. cit., 1036–1040.

  18. A prime example for a study living up to these high expectations is Tsai [24].

  19. It has also been propelled by a generation of Chinese-born, U.S.-educated scholars generally more interested in disciplinary studies than area studies. See Walder [25].

  20. Cabestan [32], op. cit., 99–131 (here: 99).

  21. Hurst, op. cit.; Chen/Sun, op. cit.

  22. Shambaugh [33], op. cit., 213–240.

  23. Hurst, op. cit., 467.

  24. Chen/Sun, op. cit., 539–541.

  25. Of course, these are not the only consideration. Yanow, op. cit., 430, emphasizes that a host of subjective factors influence researchers “choice” of subject and methodology. These can be summarized as the researcher’s (academic) socialization which means that “choice” is probably more limited than the use of this expression suggests. Nevertheless, I would maintain that within a given frame of preferences scholars still have room to select different topics and methods of research.

  26. Walder, op. cit.

  27. The actual benefits of multi-method research are themselves being contested, however. See Rohlfing and Kuehn [27]. More positive assessments are Pickel [34], op. cit. 517–542; Kelle and Erzberger [35], op. cit., 299–309.

  28. Walder, op. cit.

References

  1. Chao, Wen. 2007. Guanyu zhengzhixue bentuhua de sikao [Reflections on the Indigenization of Political Science]. Keji Xinxi [Science Information] 12: 153–154.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Puqu, Wang. 2008. Woguo zhengzhixue xueshu fazhan zhong de jiben guanxi lunxi. Jinian shi yi jie san zhong quanhui 30 zhou nian [Discussion of Basic Relationships Within the Academic Development of Chinese Political Science. In Commemoration of the 30th Anniversary of the Eleventh Central Committee’s Third Plenum]. Zhengzhixue [Political Science] 6: 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review 64(4): 1033–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz. 2006. A tale of two cultures: contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis 14(3): 227–249. quote from 227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yanow, Dvora. 2009. Interpretive ways of knowing in the study of politics. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen [Methods of Comparative Social and Political Science. New Developments and Applications], ed. Susanne Pickel, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth, and Detlef Jahn, 429–439. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bennett, Andrew and Colin Elman. 2007. Qualitative methods. The view from the subfields. Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 111–121. here: 113-114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Collier, David, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seewright. 2004. Critiques, responses, and trade-offs: Drawing together the debate. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards, ed. Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 195–227. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. quote from 225.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goertz, Gary. 2006. Introduction to the special issue ‘causal complexity and qualitative methods’. Political Analysis 14(3): 223–226. here: 224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mayring, Philipp. 2002. Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung [Introduction to Qualitative Social Research], 5th ed, 149. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mahoney, James. 2007. Qualitative methodology and comparative politics. Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 122–144. here: 128–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guangbin, Yang. 2009. Zhongguo jingyan yu zhengzhixue lilun de shiyongxing wenti [China’s Experience and the Applicability Question of Political Theory]. Paper presented at the roundtable on “Political Science and Chinese Political Studies,” Shanghai on March 29.

  13. Behr, Hartmut. 2006. Der Vergleich im Spannungsfeld kultureller Differenezen [Comparison in View of Cultural Differences]. In Vergleichende Regierungslehre. Eine Einführung [Comparative politics. An introduction], 2nd ed, ed. Hans-Joachim Lauth, 70–87. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. here: 76.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Knoblauch, Hubert, Uwe Flick, and Christoph Maeder. 2005. Qualitative methods in Europe: The variety of social research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6(3): Article 34.

  15. Flick, Uwe, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke. (eds). 2000. Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch [Qualitative Research. A Handbook] 6th edition. Reinbeck: Rowohlt.

  16. Manion, Melanie. 2008. An introduction to survey research on Chinese politics. China Quarterly 196: 755–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Manion, Melanie. 2009. How to assess village elections in China. Journal of Contemporary China 18(60): 379–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hurst, William. 2006. The city as the focus: the analysis of contemporary Chinese urban politics. China Information 20(3): 457–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen, Xiangming and Jiaming Sun. 2006. Sociological perspectives on urban China: from familiar territories to complex terrains. China Information 20(3): 519–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhong, Yang. 2009. Cong bijiao zhengzhixue de luoji kan zhengzhixue zai Zhongguo de fazhan [Progress of Political Science in China Viewed from the Logic of Comparative Politics]. Paper presented at the roundtable on “Political Science and Chinese Political Studies,” Shanghai on March 29.

  21. Baum, Richard. 2007. Studies of Chinese Politics in the United States. In China watching. Perspectives from Europe, Japan and the United States, ed. Ash Robert, Shambaugh David, and Takagi Seiichiro, 147–168. London: Routledge. quote from 160, italics in original.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Levy, Jack S. 2007. Qualitative methods and cross-method dialogue in political science. Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 196–214. here: 200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scharping, Thomas. 2000. Die sozialwissenschaftliche China-Forschung: Rückblick und Ausblick,” [Social Science Research on China: Review and Prospects]. Cologne China Studies Online (1): 4.

  24. Tsai, Lily L. 2007. Accountability without democracy.Solidary groups and public goods provision in rural China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Walder, Andrew. 2002. The transformation of contemporary China studies, 1977–2002. In The politics of knowledge: Area studies and the disciplines, ed. David L. Szanton. University of California Press.

  26. Breslin, Shaun. 2006. Trends of scholarship in the study of the politics and international relations of contemporary China. China Aktuell (3): 61–73.

  27. Rohlfing, Ingo, and David Kuehn. 2008. Putting the horse before the cart again: A systematic perspective on theory development through mixed-method designs. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Boston, August 28–31.

  28. Munck, Gerardo L. 2004. Tools for qualitative research. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards, ed. Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 105–121. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  29. McKweon, Timothy J. 2004. Case studies and the limits of the quantitative worldview. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards, ed. Henry E. Bardy and David Collier, 139–167. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pickel, Susanne, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth, and Detlef Jahn. 2009. Differenzierung und Vielfalt der vergleichenden Methoden in den Sozialwissenschaften [Differentiation and Diversity in Social Science Comparative Methods]. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen [Methods of comparative social and political science. New developments and applications], ed. Susanne Pickel, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth, and Detlef Jahn, 9–26. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lauth, Hans-Joachim and Jurgen W. Winkler. 2006. Methoden der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft [Methods of comparative politics]. In Vergleichende Regierungslehre. Eine Einführung [Comparative politics. An introduction], 2nd ed, ed. Hans-Joachim Lauth, 37–69. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cabestan, Jean-Pierre. 2007. Studies of Chinese politics in Europe. In China watching. Perspectives from Europe, Japan and the United States, ed. Robert Ash, David Shambaugh, and Seiichiro Takagi, 99–131. London: Routledge. here. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shambaugh, David. 2007. Studies of China’s foreign and security policies in the United States. In China watching. Perspectives from Europe, Japan and the United States, ed. Robert Ash, Shambaugh David, and Seiichiro Takagi, 213–240. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pickel, Sussane. 2009. Die Triangulation als Methode in der Politikwissenschaft [Triangulation as a method in political science]. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen [Methods of comparative social and political Science. New developments and applications], ed. Sussane Pickel, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth, and Detlef Jahn, 517–542. Weisbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kelle, Udo and Christian Erzberger. 2000. Qualitative und quantitative Methoden: Kein Gegensatz [Qualitative and quantitative methods: No contrast]. In Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch [Qualitative research. A handbook], 299–309, 6th ed, ed. Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke. Reinbeck: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Kulturwissenschaften Ost—und Südasiens—Sinologie, Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074, Würzburg, Germany

    Björn Alpermann

Authors
  1. Björn Alpermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Björn Alpermann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alpermann, B. Political Science Research on China: Making the Most of Diversity. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 14, 343–356 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-009-9069-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-009-9069-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation