Spring 2004 Newsletter
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, Spring 2009 References Social Research 16, 27–42. Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2003. “Is This the Curriculum We Want? Allison, Graham. 1973. Essence of Decision. Boston: Little, Brown. Doctoral Requirements and Offerings in Methods and Methodol- Atkinson, Paul, Amanda Coffey, and Sara Delamont. 2003. Key ogy.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, 379–386. Themes in Qualitative Research: Continuities and Change. Wal- Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2005. “The Graduate Student Experience: nut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. ‘Hegemony’ or Balance in Methodology Training?” In Perestroika! Bauer, Martin W. and George D. Gaskell, eds. 2002. Qualitative The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. Kristen Renwick Mon- Researching with Text, Image and Sound. London: Sage. roe, ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 374–402. Bennett, Andrew, Aharon Barth, and Ken Rutherford. 2003. “Do We Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2006. “Judging Quality: Evaluative Crite- Preach What We Practice? A Survey of Methods in Political Sci- ria and Epistemic Communities.” In Interpretation and Method: ence Journals and Curricula.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Dvora 373–378. Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Benford, Robert D. 1997. “An Insider’s Critique of the Social Move- Sharpe, 89–113. ment Framing Perspective.” Sociological Inquiry 67:4, 409–430. Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine and Dvora Yanow. 2002. “‘Reading’ ‘Meth- Blau, Peter. 1963 [1953]. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: ods’ ‘Texts’: How Research Methods Texts Construct Political University of Chicago Press. Science.” Political Research Quarterly 55, 457–486. Brady, Henry E., and David Collier, eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Schütz, Alfred. 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Chi- Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman cago: Northwestern University Press. and Littlefield. Shapiro, Ian. 2002. “Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study Burke, Kenneth. 1965 [1935]. Permanence and Change. Indianapo- of Politics, or: What’s Wrong with Political Science and What to lis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Do About It.” Political Theory 30, 596–619. Creswell, John W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative & Quantita- Taylor, Charles. 1977. “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man.” In tive Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Understanding and Social Inquiry. Fred R. Dallmayr and Thomas Crozier, Michel. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: Uni- A. McCarthy, eds. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame versity of Chicago Press. Press, 101–131. Dryzek, John. 1986. “The Progress of Political Science.” Journal of Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Relations. Politics 48:2, 301–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fenno, Richard. 1978. Homestyle: House Members in their Districts. Yanow, Dvora. 2006. “How Built Spaces Mean: A Semiotics of Boston: Little, Brown. Space.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Meth- Foucault, Michel. 1970. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the ods and the Interpretive Turn. Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz- Human Sciences. New York: Random House. Shea, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 349–366. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. eds. 2006. Interpreta- Basic Books. tion and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Turn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge. Teaching Gender and Politics: Harper, Douglas. 2003. “Reimagining Visual Methods: Galileo to Neuromancer.” In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materi- Feminist Methods in Political Science als. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 176–198. Mona Lena Krook Hiley, David R., James F. Bohman, and Richard Shusterman, eds. Washington University in St. Louis 1991. The Interpretive Turn. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kaufman, Herbert. 1960. The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administra- [email protected] tive Behavior. Baltimore, MD: Published for Resources for the Future by Johns Hopkins Press. Feminist research in political science is marked by two King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing major contributions: (1) introducing the concept of “gender” Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press. and (2) expanding the definition of “politics.” Given its origins Monroe, Kristen Renwick, ed. 2005. Perestroika! The Raucous Re- in feminist theory and activism, it is guided by scholarly and bellion in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Neuman, Lawrence W. 2006. Social Research Methods: Qualitative political aims to transform the study and the practice of politics and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (cf. Hawkesworth 2006). These commitments enable feminist Norton, Anne. 2004. “Political Science as a Vocation.” In Problems scholars to identify new research questions, as well as to ap- and Methods in the Study of Politics. Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith, proach traditional topics in novel ways, using a variety of re- and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. New York: Cambridge University search tools. However, rethinking the content and methods of Press, 67–82. political analysis has important implications for how to teach Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Aaron Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. political science by raising questions about what political sci- Berkeley: University of California Press. entists study and how and why they study these particular Rabinow, Paul and William M. Sullivan, eds. 1979. Interpretive So- topics. It also poses certain challenges, or presents new op- cial Science. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rabinow, Paul and William M. Sullivan, eds. 1985. Interpretive So- portunities, for political science pedagogy by compelling pro- cial Science, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. fessors to devise innovative techniques for communicating Ragin, Charles C. 1997. “Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented material and fostering self-reflection among students, who may Research Challenges Variable-Oriented Research.” Comparative resist or embrace central tenets of feminism. To explore how 23 Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, Spring 2009 feminist scholars have met these challenges, this article exam- as binary opposites, to constructed gender identities, which ines 45 syllabi for courses on women, gender, and politics view masculinity and femininity as features that exist along a taught at various universities in the United States and West- continuum, often in combination with other identities, and (2) ern Europe between 2002 and 2008.1 The analysis begins with it replaces exclusive concern with women in politics and pub- a short introduction to trends in gender and politics research lic policy with attention to the impact of masculinities and and interdisciplinary debates on feminist research methods. It femininities, as well as relations between men and women, on then takes a closer look at the syllabi to illuminate some shared political inputs and outcomes (Krook and Childs 2009). Given features of course content, as well as to make note of course women’s ongoing exclusion, focusing on “women” remains readings, formats, and assignments that reflect feminist com- crucial for mapping patterns of political access, behaviors, mitments to learning and personal transformation. The goal is and effects. However, theories of gender offer a chance to to raise awareness of feminist tools and teaching techniques delve more deeply into these dynamics by bringing men into as a means for assessing their potential contributions for other the analysis as well, thereby making the subject of investiga- areas of political science. tion the role of masculinities and femininities, and the relative status of men and women, in the conduct of political life. Research on Women, Gender, and Politics A second concern of feminists is to broaden existing defi- Feminism is often defined as the belief in the social, eco- nitions of what is meant by “politics.” Political scientists tend nomic, and political equality of women and men. However, to use this term to refer to formal processes and institutions of there are in fact a variety of feminist approaches, which differ government and elections. Women’s movement activism in in terms of how they conceptualize and seek to alter the status recent decades, however, has inspired feminists to theorize at quo.2 Liberal feminists focus mainly on equality, seeking to least two additional meanings. One group expands its range gain rights for women that are already guaranteed to men. to encompass informal politics and the dynamics of everyday They argue that achieving concrete gains requires engaging life. Some scholars insist, for example, that social movements with formal politics. They contend that although this sphere are a form of political participation on par with engagement has traditionally been dominated by men, there is nothing in- inside the state (Beckwith 2005). At the same time, others herent about this domination. For this reason, they anticipate draw attention to the power dynamics that permeate all levels that as more women enter the public realm, the gendered na- of social life, including relations within the private sphere of ture of politics and