scholarly journals Capacity building and collaborative research on cross-national studies in the Asian region

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. S117-S122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yih-Ing Hser ◽  
Linda Chang ◽  
Gene-Jack Wang ◽  
Ming D. Li ◽  
Richard Rawson ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
David P. Farrington ◽  
◽  
Patrick A. Langan ◽  
Michael Tonry

1995 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. S1-S6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myrna M. Weissman ◽  
Glorisa J. Canino ◽  
Steven Greenwald ◽  
Peter R. Joyce ◽  
Elie G. Karam ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ali Kadivar ◽  
Adaner Usmani ◽  
Benjamin H. Bradlow

Over the last several decades, dozens of dictatorships have become democracies. Yet while each has held free and fair elections, they have varied in the extent to which their citizens realize the ideal of self-rule. Why do some democracies distribute power to citizens while other democracies withhold it? Existing research is suggestive, but its implications are ambiguous. Cross-national studies have focused on democracy’s formal dimensions, while work on substantive democracy is case-based. We find that one of the most consistent and powerful explanations of substantive democratization is the length of unarmed pro-democratic mobilization prior to a transition. Through a case study of Brazil, we illustrate that these movements matter in three ways: first, because practices of self-organizing model and enable democratic reforms; second, because movement veterans use state office to deepen democracy; and third, because long movements yield civil societies with the capacity to demand the continuous deepening of democracy.


Social Forces ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1213
Author(s):  
Gwen Moore ◽  
Cynthia Fuchs Epstein ◽  
Rose Laub Coser

2019 ◽  
pp. 004912411988245
Author(s):  
Elena Damian ◽  
Bart Meuleman ◽  
Wim van Oorschot

In this article, we examine whether cross-national studies disclose enough information for independent researchers to evaluate the validity and reliability of the findings (evaluation transparency) or to perform a direct replication (replicability transparency). The first contribution is theoretical. We develop a heuristic theoretical model including the actors, factors, and processes that influence the transparency of cross-national studies and provide an overview of the measures currently taken to improve research transparency. The second contribution is empirical, in which we analyze the level of transparency in published cross-national studies. Specifically, using a random sample of 305 comparative studies published in one of 29 peer-reviewed social sciences journals (from 1986 to 2016), we show that, even though all the articles include some methodological information, the great majority lack sufficient information for evaluation and replication. Lastly, we develop and propose a set of transparency guidelines tailored for reporting cross-national survey research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document