Abstract
Within the social sciences, a robust epistemological debate exists over how the study of social phenomena should be conducted in order to build empirical understanding and theoretical knowledge, and to inform policy making. In political science the result has been a tendency toward quantitative analysis, including large-n studies and formal models, given their purported relative strength in external validity. Qualitative researchers have been counseled to approximate the “scientific” approach, defined as following the conventions of quantitative models as closely as possible. Yet, many contextual and process-oriented research questions within political science are not conducive to quantitative analysis. In this introductory chapter, Kachuyevski and Samuel present the conceptual framework of the book, outlining both the validity and the utility of in-depth qualitative analysis, particularly in policy-relevant research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Given the scope of this work, while we make this acknowledgment we do not engage with this debate.
- 2.
We use the term “politics of knowledge ” to refer not simply to the so-called quantitative/qualitative divide, but also to the politics associated with the use by researchers of one approach versus the other, and the corresponding effect this may have on their advancing in academe. As Yanow and Schwartz-Shea (2006) quite rightly note, for junior faculty who conduct qualitative research, there are problems of publication and tenure and promotion; for all faculty, problems may arise in the form of contentions with departmental colleagues who do not value qualitative research and who are resistant to hiring new faculty with qualitative orientations. However, given the parameters of this project, we will not engage with this latter aspect of the politics of knowledge.
- 3.
Indeed, feminists using this approach have been inspired to do so when they seek to get away from existing theoretical accounts of the matter at hand. In so doing, they work within a broad, non-specific theoretical framework that may include influences from postpositivist, critical, and/or queer theories, among others (Ackerly and True 2010).
References
Ackerly, Brooke A., and Jacqui True. 2010. Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social Science. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Agar, Michael H. 2010. On the Ethnographic Part of the Mix: A Multi-Genre Tale of the Field. Organizational Research Methods 13(2): 286–303.
Avey, Paul, and Michael C. Desch. 2014. What Do Policymakers Want from Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Decision Makers. International Studies Quarterly 58(2): 227–246.
Babbitt, Eileen, and Fen Osler Hampson. 2011. Conflict Resolution as a Field of Inquiry: Practice Informing Theory. International Studies Review 13(1): 46–57.
Bennett, Andrew, and G. John Ikenberry. 2006. The Review’s Evolving Relevance for U.S. Foreign Policy, 1906–2006. American Political Science Review 100(4): 651–658.
Bevir, Mark, and R.A.W. Rhodes. 2006. Governance Stories. New York: Routledge.
Dessler, David. 2003. The Positivist-Interpretivist Controversy. Qualitative Methods 1(2): 21–24.
Elman, Colin, and Diana Kapiszewski. 2014. Data Access and Research Transparency in the Qualitative Tradition. PS: Political Science & Politics 47(1): 43–47.
Gallucci, Robert. 2012. How Scholars Can Improve International Relations. The Chronicle of Higher Education 59(14): A60.
George, Alexander L. 1993. Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Gerring, John. 2003. Interpretations of Interpretivism. Qualitative Methods 1(2): 2–5.
Henn, Matt, Mark Weinstein, and Nick Foard. 2009. A Critical Introduction to Social Research. London: Sage Publications.
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene, and Patricia Leavy. 2011. The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jentleson, Bruce W., and Ely Ratner. 2011. Bridging the Beltway-Ivory Tower Gap. International Studies Review 13(1): 6–11.
Kelman, Herbert. 2003. The Role of the Scholar-Practitioner in International Conflict Resolution. International Studies Perspectives 1(3): 273–287.
King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Laitin, David D. 2003. Interpretation. Qualitative Methods 1(2): 6–9.
McLaughlin Mitchell, Sara, Paul F. Diehl, and D. James, Hrsg. 2012. Guide to the Scientific Study of International Processes. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nye, Joseph. 2008. Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Policy. Political Psychology 29(4): 593–603.
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, and Dvora Yanow. 2002. ’Reading’ ‘Methods’ ‘Texts’: How Research Methods Texts Construct Political Science. Political Research Quarterly 55: 457–486.
Walt, Stephen M. 2005. The Relationship Between Theory and Policy in International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science 8(1): 23–48.
Yanow, Dvora. 2003. Interpretive Empirical Political Science: What Makes This Not a Subfield of Qualitative Methods. Qualitative Methods 1(2): 9–13.
Yanow, Dvora, and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, Hrsg. 2006. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Yanow, Dvora, and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, Hrsg. 2014. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kachuyevski, A., Samuel, L.M. (2018). Introduction: Doing Qualitative Research in Politics: Building Theory and Formulating Policy. In: Kachuyevski, A., Samuel, L. (eds) Doing Qualitative Research in Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72230-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72230-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72229-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72230-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)