DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Design Skopje 6-7 November 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Design Skopje 6-7 November 2008 Research Design Skopje 6-7 November 2008 Daniel Bochsler and Lucas Leemann Center for Comparative and International Studies, University of Zurich [email protected]; [email protected] Introduction The goal of this workshop session is to review the current literature on issues of research design in social sciences and to allow the participants to improve on their skills in designing research. The workshop starts off with a short review of some basic principles of scientific research, before turning to two of the main goals of scientific work, namely descriptive and causal inferences. In a second part different research designs are discussed, relying on the basic distinction between experimental and quasi-experimental work. Given that despite the important forays in experimental studies in the social sciences (see Druckman, Green, Kuklinski and Lupia, 2006) quasi- experimental designs will be discussed in more detail. Special emphasis will be put on the dangers to our inferences in such quasi-experimental designs. The third part will consist of a discussion of a few chosen research designs to highlight their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, based on the participants own experience, in a short training session they will have to sketch possible research designs for chosen research questions. Plan, readings and literature Most of the literature on which this workshop will rely comes from King, Keohane and Verba (1994), a book that, from a very specific perspective, highlights the similarities between quantitative and qualitative approaches. Needless to say, this book has attracted a series of critiques (e.g., Caporaso, 1995; Collier, 1995; Rogowski, 1995; Tarrow, 1995; Brady and Collier, 2004). Other useful books to consult are the following: Cook and Campbell (1979), Achen (1986), Gerring (2001), Geddes (2003), George and Bennett (2005), Weingast and Wittman (2006),Gerring (2007), Box-Steffensmeier, Brady and Collier (2008), and Reus-Smit and Snidal (2008). 6. November 2008, morning session, 9.30h – 12.30h 1 Introduction (20’) In the first part of the workshop, we discuss why methodology plays a central role in empirical research, highlight the different goals of descriptive studies and of studies that are interested in causal mechanisms, and discuss how hypotheses are best constructed in order to be testable with empirical data. We discuss briefly, why both quantitative and qualitative observations can help us to make empirically based conclusions. 1.1. What does scientific research mean? (15’) Mandatory reading: King, Keohane and Verba (1994, 3-12) 11/07/11, program_skopje.doc 1.2. Descriptive and causal inference (30’) Mandatory readings: King, Keohane and Verba (1994, 34-99); Levitt and Dubner (2005) Further readings: (Donohue and Levitt 2001; Holland, 1986; Pearl, 2001; Brady and Seawright, 2004; Morgan and Winship, 2007; Brady, 2008) 1.3. Where to start from: asking questions and getting the hypotheses right (30’ + 30’ exercise) Mandatory readings: Grofman (2001, 1-11); King, Keohane and Verba (1994, 99-114) Further readings: (Goertz, 2006, 1-67, 237-268; Goertz, 2008; Ragin, 1987) Exercise: Hypotheses 6. November 2008, afternoon session, 14h-17.30h 2 Research designs Before we start to investigate our cases, it is important to think about how we should structure our research so that at the end we can draw any conclusions on the cases that we are interested. In this part of the workshop, we discuss different research designs that are often applied in social sciences, and that can lead to meaningful and credible conclusions. 2.1 Introduction (10’) Mandatory reading: King, Keohane and Verba (1994, 13-33,115-128) 2.2. Experimental designs (45’) Experimental research is better known from natural sciences, such as chemistry, but there are important reasons why we should think about experiments in social sciences too: On the one hand, experiments are extremely expressive when we want to make causal conclusions about a mechanism. On the other hand, we will discuss the limits of experimental research in social sciences. Mandatory reading: Druckman, Green, Kuklinski and Lupia (2006) Further reading: (Kinder, 1993) 2.3. Quasi-experimental designs and ex-post facto designs Usually, we have situations where experiments are not feasible or where we can only hardly conclude from experimental data on general effects. This is why most of our research is based on our observations of the empirical reality. Sometimes, we try to imitate experiments, and can draw conclusions from quasi-experiments, but often this is not possible, and then we apply ex-post facto designs for our research. We discuss how we need to chose our observations for quasi-experimental research or ex-post facto designs, and we discuss general problems that occur in this research, both when applying quantitative or qualitative methods. 2.3.1. Creating counter-factual cases; how to make conclusions out of observational data (30’) Page 2 Mandatory reading: King, Keohane and Verba (1994, 75-91) Further readings: (Cook and Campbell, 1979; Achen, 1986; Collier and Mahoney, 1996; Fearon, 1991; Tetlock and Berlin, 1996; Przeworski, 2008, 2008) 7. November 2008, morning session, 9.30h-12.00h 2.3.2. Typical quasi-experimental research designs (30’ + 30’ exercise) Mandatory reading: Card and Krueger (1994) 2.3.3. Ex-post facto designs: Comparing most-similar cases or statistical controls (30’) Mandatory reading: Card and Krueger (1994) 2.3.4. Populations, samples, random selection of cases (20’) Mandatory reading: King, Keohane and Verba (1994, 115-149) Further readings: (Card and Krueger, 1994) 2.3.5. Problems in ex-post facto designs: Endogeneity (20’) Mandatory reading: Colomer (2005) Further readings: (Hug, 2006; King, Keohane and Verba, 1994, 91-97; Przeworski, 2004, 2008) 2.3.6. Problems in ex-post facto designs: Selection bias, selecting on the (in)dependent variable (45’) Mandatory readings: Geddes (1991); King, Keohane and Verba (1994, 115-149) Further readings: (Achen and Snidal, 1989; Geddes, 1991; Geddes, 2003; Hug, 2003; Bodenstein, 2004; Plümper, Schneider and Troeger, 2005 forthcoming; Hug, 2006; Hewitt/Goertz, 2005; Mahoney/Goertz, 2004) 2.3.7. Problems in quasi-experimental research: Multi-collinearity (15’) Further readings: (Wooldridge 2008) 7 November 2008, afternoon session, 13.30h-18.00h 3. Research designs in practice In the practical part of the workshop, you will have the opportunity to elaborate a few research questions and research designs in groups, considering the aspects that we had discussed in the plenary lectures. Afterwards, we will discuss the proposed research designs jointly. 3.1. Exercises: part A (in groups) 3.2. Exercices: part B (plenum) Page 3 4. Conclusion and evaluation of the workshop References Achen, Christopher H. 1986. Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press. Achen, Christopher H. and Duncan Snidal. 1989. “Rational Deterrence Theory and Comparative Case Studies.” World Politics 41(2): 143–169. Bodenstein, Thilo. 2004. “Domestic Bargaining and the Allocation of Structural Funds in Objective 1 Regions.” Paper prepared for presentation at the Joint Session of Workshops of the ECPR, Uppsala. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Henry E. Brady and David Collier, eds. 2008. The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brady, Henry. 2008. Framing social inquiry: from models of causation to statistically based causal inference. In The Oxford handbook of political methodology, ed. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady and David Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brady, Henry E. and David Collier, eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Brady, Henry and Jason Seawright. 2004. “Framing Social Inquiry: From Models of Causation to Statistically Based Causal Inference.” Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 2-5, 2004. Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Caporaso, James A. 1995. “Research Design, Falsification, and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide.” American Political Science Review 89(2): 457–460. Collier, David. 1995. “Translating Quantitative Methods For Qualitative Researchers: The Case of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 89(2): 461–466. Collier, David and James Mahoney. 1996. “Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research.” World Politics 49(1): 56–91. Colomer, Josep M. 2005. "It's Parties That Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger's Laws Upside Down)." Political Studies 53(1): 1-21. Cook, Thomas D. and Donald T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experiments. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Donohue, John J. and Steven D. Levitt. 2001. “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(2): 379–420. Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski and Arthur Lupia. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 100(4): 627– 635. Fearon, James D. 1991. "Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science." World Politics 43(2): 169- 195. Geddes, Barbara. 1991. How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics. In Political Analysis, ed. James A. Stimson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press pp. 131–152. Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research
    Advance Access publication June 13, 2006 Political Analysis (2006) 14:227–249 doi:10.1093/pan/mpj017 A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research James Mahoney Departments of Political Science and Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-1006 e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author) Gary Goertz Department of Political Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 e-mail: [email protected] The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to expla- nation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive ‘‘cross-cultural’’ communica- tion in political science. Introduction Comparisons of the quantitative and qualitative research traditions sometimes call to mind religious metaphors. In his commentary for this issue, for example, Beck (2006) likens the traditions to the worship of alternative gods. Schrodt (2006), inspired by Brady’s (2004b, 53) prior casting of the controversy in terms of theology versus homiletics, is more explicit: ‘‘while this debate is not in any sense about religion, its dynamics are best understood as though it were about religion. We have always known that, it just needed to be said.’’ We prefer to think of the two traditions as alternative cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • "A Sea Change in Political Methodology." in Rethinking Social
    Introduction to Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2 edn., Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, ed. (Rowman and Littlefield, 2010). A Sea Change in Political Methodology David Collier, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright We begin with rival claims about the ''science'' in social science. In our view, juxtaposing these claims brings into focus a sea change in political science methodology. King, Keohane, and Verba's (KKV) 1994 book, Designing Social Inquiry, proposes a bold methodological agenda for researchers who work in the qualitative tradition. The book's subtitle directly summarizes the agenda: ''scientific inference in qualitative research'' (italics added). To its credit, the book is explicit in its definition of science. It draws on what we and many others have viewed as a ''quantitative template,'' which serves as the foun- dation for the desired scientific form of qualitative methods. In KKV's view, standard research procedures of qualitative analysis are routinely problem- atic, and ideas drawn from conventional quantitative methods are offered as guideposts to help qualitative researchers be scientific. 1. For our own work, we share Freedman's view of plurality in scientific methods, and we recognize social versus natural science as partially different enterprises. Yet the two can and should strive for careful formulation of hypotheses, intersubjec- tive agreement on the facts being analyzed, precise use of data, and good research design. With this big-tent understanding of science, we are happy to be included in the tent. 2. As explained above in the preface, in the second edition we use the abbreviation KKV to refer to the book, rather than DSI, as in the first edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Second Edition
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title A Sea of Change in Political Methodology? Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8gq6g191 Journal Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, 9(1) Authors Collier, David Brady, Henry E Seawright, Jason Publication Date 2011-04-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Qualitative and Multi-Method Research. Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section. 9, No. 1 (Spring 2011, forthcoming). A Sea Change in Political Methodology1 David Collier University of California, Berkeley [email protected] Henry E. Brady University of California, Berkeley [email protected] Jason Seawright Northwestern University [email protected] Shifting debates on what constitutes “science” reveal competing claims about methodology.2 Of course, in its origin the term “science” means “knowledge,” and researchers obviously hold a wide spectrum of positions on how to produce viable knowledge. Within this spectrum, we compare two alternative meanings of science, advanced by scholars who seek to legitimate sharply contrasting views of qualitative methods. This comparison points to a sea change in political science methodology.3 1 This article draws on the Introductions to Parts I and II of Brady and Collier, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd edn. (Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010). 2 Morgan (1996) provides a broad overview of rival views of science, encompassing the natural,
    [Show full text]
  • Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, Sidney Verba Designing Social Inquiry
    Designing Social Inquiry Designing Social Inquiry SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Gary King Robert O. Keohane Sidney Verba PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Copyright 1994 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In The United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, Chichester, West Sussex All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data King, Gary. Designing social inquiry : scientific inference in qualitiative research / Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, Sidney Verba. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-691-03470-2 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 0-691-03471-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Social sciences—Methodology. 2. Social sciences— Research. 3. Inference I. Keohane, Robert Owen. II. Verba, Sidney. III. Title. H61.K5437 1994 93-39283 300′.72—dc20 CIP This book has been composed in Adobe Palatino Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources Printed in the United States of America 109876543 Third printing, with corrections and expanded index, 1995 Contents Preface ix 1 The Science in Social Science 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.1.1 Two Styles of Research, One Logic of Inference 3 1.1.2 Defining Scientific Research in Social Sciences 7 1.1.3 Science and Complexity 9 1.2 Major Components of Research Design 12 1.2.1 Improving Research Questions
    [Show full text]
  • POL 415: Political Science Junior Seminar Syllabus Updated 2015-01-25; Total Pages: 944 Prof. Alex Montgomery [email protected] (503) 517-7395
    POL 415: Political Science Junior Seminar Syllabus updated 2015-01-25; Total Pages: 944 Prof. Alex Montgomery [email protected] (503) 517-7395 Class Office M 6:10-7:30 Tu 2:00-5:00 or by appointment Vollum 110 Vollum 241 https://moodle.reed.edu/course/view.php?id=2662 http://alexmontgomery.com Course Description and Goals Half-credit course for one semester. This course is intended for second semester juniors in political science. The course prepares students to complete the initial steps required for a year-long project: asking a research question, reviewing prior literature on the subject, and proposing a research design. Conference. The schedule of the course mirrors closely the political science junior qualifying examination. The materials covered in this course are independent of the qual, and none of your qual work will be used to satisfy the requirements for this course. However, the tools and techniques that you will learn in this course should help you complete the qual and prepare you for your senior thesis. The course focuses on the tools and techniques of political science research. We will review many of the major research approaches in political science, particularly those reflecting the main areas of scholarship covered by faculty at Reed College. Much of the work in the class will involve reading, analyzing, and critiquing existing political science research with an eye to identifying the questions asked, methodology chosen, and how answers were reached. Finally, there is an important and enjoyable team-building exercise to this class: comparative cooking! Each week, the department will support a student or set of students who will cook for the class.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research
    Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research Cultural Anthropology, Law and Social Science, Political Science, and Sociology Programs National Science Foundation Supported Workshop Report prepared by: Michèle Lamont Harvard University Patricia White National Science Foundation Acknowledgements We wish to thank James Granato, former NSF Political Science Program Director, Joane Nagel, former NSF Sociology Program Director, Stuart Plattner, former NSF Cultural Anthropology Program Director, and Christopher Zorn, former NSF Law and Social Science Program Director, for their help in planning and participation in the workshop, Karen Duke and Michelle Jenkins, NSF Social and Political Sciences Cluster staff members, for their administrative and technical support, Lauren Rivera and Sabrina Pendergrass, graduate assistants for their work with Professor Lamont on workshop and report preparations at Harvard University, Joane Nagel and Kristin Luker, Professor of Sociology and Jurisprudence and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley for their thoughtful comments on the draft report, and the 23 workshop participants who took on the enormous task of representing their respective disciplines at the workshop through the submission and presentations of short papers prior to the workshop and comment and recommendations during and after the meeting. We also thank the 2007 graduate student cohort of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University and Camonia Long, Howard University graduate student, for their reactions to the report. Workshop Participants & Attendees Michèle Lamont, Harvard University, Jody Miller, University of Missouri, St. Louis Workshop Organizer Joane Nagel, University of Kansas Andrew Bennett, Georgetown University Beth Rubin, University of North Ted Bestor, Harvard University Carolina-Charlotte Kathleen Blee, University of Pittsburgh Gery Ryan, Rand Corporation Don Brenneis, University of California, Susan Silbey, Massachusetts Institute of Santa Cruz Technology John Bowen, Washington University in St.
    [Show full text]
  • Claiming Too Much: Warnings About Selection Bias
    CHAPTER 1 Claiming Too Much: Warnings about Selection Bias David Collier, James Mahoney, and Jason Seawright How well do the tools and insights of mainstream quantitative methods1 serve as a template for qualitative analysis? The present chapter addresses this question by evaluating forceful warnings about selection bias that have been offered, from a quantitative perspective, to qualitative researchers. Specifically, we discuss warnings about bias in studies that deliberately focus on cases with extreme values on the dependent variable. Assessing these warnings provides an opportunity to examine the leverage gained, as well as the pitfalls encountered, in applying insights about quantitative methods to qualitative investigation. Within the quantitative tradition, selection bias is recognized as a challenging problem of inference. James Heckman’s (1976, 1979) widely known research on this topic, and his Nobel Prize in economics for this work, underscore the Mark I. Lichbach provided insightful suggestions about the version of this material earlier published in the American Political Science Review. 1Mainstream quantitative methods are understood here as strongly oriented toward regression analysis, econometric refinements on regression, and the search for alternatives to regression models in contexts where specific regression assumptions are not met. 3 4 David Collier, James Mahoney, and Jason Seawright importance of selection bias.2 In light of the effort that has gone into exploring this problem, it is perhaps not surprising that selection bias is a complex issue, the nature of which is not intuitively obvious for many scholars.3 This chapter first briefly reviews these warnings about selection bias, as well as counterarguments to these warnings that have been presented by various researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualitative Methods and Cross-Method Dialogue in Political Science
    Comparative Political Studies http://cps.sagepub.com Qualitative Methods and Cross-Method Dialogue in Political Science Jack S. Levy Comparative Political Studies 2007; 40; 196 DOI: 10.1177/0010414006296348 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/40/2/196 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Comparative Political Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cps.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 10 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/40/2/196#BIBL Downloaded from http://cps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on January 17, 2007 © 2007 Sage Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Comparative Political Studies Volume 40 Number 2 February 2007 196-214 © 2007 Sage Publications Qualitative Methods and 10.1177/0010414006296348 http://cps.sagepub.com hosted at Cross-Method Dialogue http://online.sagepub.com in Political Science Jack S. Levy Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey The author accepts the basic argument that recent advances in qualitative methods have had an uneven impact on the three major empirical fields in political science. He emphasizes that scholars in all three fields have made significant contributions to qualitative methodology, but these contributions have a more profound impact on the practice of qualitative work in compar- ative and international politics than in American politics. The author argues that the differences between qualitative and quantitative or formal research are less pronounced than some would believe.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Introduction
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. Chapter 1 Introduction In this book, we explore the relationship between the quantitative and qualitative research traditions in the social sciences, with particular emphasis on political science and sociology. We do so by identifying various ways in which the traditions differ. They contrast across numerous areas of method­ ology, ranging from type of research question, to mode of data analysis, to method of inference. We suggest that these differences are systematically and coherently related to one another such that it is meaningful to speak of distinct quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. We treat the quantitative and qualitative traditions as alternative cul­ tures. Each has its own values, beliefs, and norms. Each is associated with distinctive research procedures and practices. Communication within a given culture tends to be fluid and productive. Communication across cultures, however, tends to be difficult and marked by misunderstanding. When scholars from one tradition offer their insights to members of the other tradition, the advice is often viewed as unhelpful and inappropriate. The dissonance between the alternative cultures is seen with the miscom­ munication, skepticism, and frustration that sometimes mark encounters between quantitative and qualitative researchers. At its core, we suggest, the quantitative–qualitative disputation in the social sciences is really a clash of cultures. Like all cultures, the quantitative and qualitative ones are not mono­ lithic blocks (see Sewell (2005) for a good discussion of the concept of “culture”).
    [Show full text]
  • The Promising Integration of Qualitative Methods and Field Experiments
    The Promising Integration of Qualitative Methods and Field Experiments Elizabeth Levy Paluck Princeton University In press, Annals of the American Academy for Political and Social Science The author gratefully acknowledges Lee Ann Fuji, John Gerring, Donald P. Green, Jessica Greenberg, Peter John, and Christopher Muller for helpful conversations and feedback. WORD COUNT: 5,002 KEYWORDS: Field experimentation, qualitative methods, experimental ethnography, interpretive methods, archival methods. 2 Abstract Randomized field experiments should take a more central place in qualitative research. Although field experimentation is often considered a quantitative enterprise, this paper illustrates the compatibility of field experimentation with various types of qualitative measurement tools and research questions. Integrating qualitative and quantitative data within field experiments allows investigators to move past simple average treatment effects and explore mechanisms of the identified causal effect. A more novel proposal is to use field experimentation as the organizing methodological framework for archival, ethnographic, or interpretive work, and to use ethnographic methods as the primary source of measurement in “experimental ethnography.” Sustained research and theoretical specificity can address some of the seemingly incompatible features of qualitative and field experimental methods. For example, small sample sizes are acceptable as part of a research program, and some theories of historical patterns or rare events could be disaggregated into smaller cause and effect linkages to test with field experiments in theoretically relevant contexts. 3 The Promising Integration of Qualitative Methods and Field Experiments Over the past few decades, a productive exchange in political science has explored the idea that qualitative research should be guided by the logic of mainstream quantitative and experimental methods (e.g., Brady and Collier 2004; Gerring and McDermott 2007; King et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts and Methods in Social Inquiry
    Mi420 Concepts and Methods in Social Inquiry Methodology Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science Reading List, 2nd Term 2003 Teacher responsible: Dr Paul Mitchell, Kings Chambers 308; [email protected] Other Teachers: Dr Martin Bauer Prof George Gaskell Dr Mathew Mulford 10 Sessions: Lent term 2003 Wednesdays 14.00-16.00: Clement House, Room D1. Abstract This course focuses on qualitative research design in the social sciences. It seeks to encourage a critical attitude towards the basic assumptions that might inform research projects in the political and social sciences. The broad aims are: to investigate the possibility that social scientific research can contribute to social progress; to heighten methodological awareness in postgraduate study; and to enable students to improve their dissertations. By the end of the course participants should have obtained a clearer understanding of some central issues that are basic to the idea of a social science.By achieving a solid grasp of important methodological debates, they should be able to employ appropriate criteria in assessing the scientific merits of scholarly literature in their area of study. Students will also be facilitated in their efforts to pursue their own research in an analytically rigorous manner. The course is in two parts. Part 1 ‘Research Design and Evaluation’ addresses broad conceptual and methodological issues in the social science, including descriptive and casual inference in qualitative research, hypothesis testing, the logic and strategies of comparative research and rational theory evaluation. Theory will be balanced with some prominent case studies of influential political science research. Part two ‘Techniques of Analysis’ shifts from broad conceptual matters to outline a partial ‘menu’ of some of the actual research techniques that have been used to great effect in the social sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualitative Research Methods
    Qualitative Research Methods Professor Jack S. Levy Rutgers University 304 Hickman Hall; (732) 932-1073; formally PS 627 [email protected] Spring 2006 http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jacklevy/ Office Hours: Tuesdays 11-1pm & by appointment This is a combination of a research seminar and course in research design. The research design component will focus on qualitative methods. The research seminar component is open as to method. Students will present a research design on a topic of their choice, utilizing any method or combination of methods they think is appropriate. More advanced students can present a more complete piece of research. The focus is empirical. All research projects in this seminar must involve the empirical testing/validation/ exploration of a theoretical argument. Given the research focus, the seminar will not be open to first-year students. I hope that the seminar will be useful both to second year students who have just begun to think about a research project and to dissertation students who are more engaged in research. We have to go with existing course numbers, so the seminar will be listed under the course number PS627 and title “Topics in International Politics.” Many things motivated me to develop this course, but three stand out. First, too many students in our program (and in some other programs as well) get to the dissertation stage without having done any research, with negative consequences for the dissertation and for the student's future job prospects. Second, I believe that research design is potentially the single most important course students can take in graduate school.
    [Show full text]