| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Qualitative Methods and Cross-Method Dialogue in Political ScienceRutgers 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 comparative 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. In particular, the author argues that scholars have overstated the argument that qualitative researchers are significantly more skeptical of universal generalizations, more inclined to incorporate scope conditions into their theories, and more complex in their views of social reality than are quantitative and formal researchers.
Key Words: cross-method dialogue • multimethod research • selection bias • least-likely case • scope conditions
Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, No. 2,
196-214 (2007) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
