Aligning Epistemology and Writing: A Literary Analysis of Qualitative Research

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 226-245
Author(s):  
Anne-Laure Mahé
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Literary Analysis ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Reflexive Analysis

AbstractThis article examines writing as the last link in the epistemology-theory-methodology alignment. Although political scientists dedicate a great deal of their time to writing, conversations on this topic remain scarce within international relations and political science overall. Notably absent are analyses of the actual writing choices scholars make and what these mean for the knowledge they produce. This article uses the tools of literary analysis to take a closer look at the mechanics of three published academic articles in the fields of international relations and comparative politics. It focuses on how qualitative interviews are written, demonstrates how authors can conceal or reveal the dialogical dimension, and examines how they deal with the conundrum of the representation of research participants. This kind of reflexive analysis reveals the epistemological foundations of a given research article and can be used to identify instances of misrepresentation and misalignment. As such, it is an important tool for the improvement of academic writing.

Discussion of Erik Martinez Kuhonta, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu's Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-208
Author(s):  
Thomas B. Pepinsky ◽  
Barbara Geddes ◽  
Duncan McCargo ◽  
Richard Robison ◽  
Erik Martinez Kuhonta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Sensitive Area ◽  
Theoretical Orientations ◽  
Social Science Knowledge ◽  
Science Theory

Comparative politics has witnessed periodic debates between proponents of contextually sensitive area studies research and others who view such work as unscientific, noncumulative, or of limited relevance for advancing broader social science knowledge. In Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis, edited by Erik Martinez Kuhonta, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu, a group of bright, young Southeast Asianists argue that contextually sensitive research in Southeast Asia using qualitative research methods has made fundamental and lasting contributions to comparative politics. They challenge other Southeast Asianists to assert proudly the contributions that their work has made and urge the rest of the comparative politics discipline to take these contributions seriously. This symposium includes four short critical reviews of Southeast Asia in Political Science by political scientists representing diverse scholarly traditions. The reviews address both the methodological and the theoretical orientations of the book and are followed by a response from the editors.

scholarly journals The Communication of Ideas across Subfields in Political Science

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (02) ◽  
pp. 468-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin R. Graham ◽  
Charles R. Shipan ◽  
Craig Volden
Keyword(s):  
Network Analysis ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Diffusion Processes ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Levels Of Integration

ABSTRACTWhat factors inhibit or facilitate cross-subfield conversations in political science? This article draws on diffusion scholarship to gain insight into cross-subfield communication. Diffusion scholarship represents a case where such communication might be expected, given that similar diffusion processes are analyzed in American politics, comparative politics, and international relations. We identify nearly 800 journal articles published on diffusion within political science between 1958 and 2008. Using network analysis we investigate the degree to which three “common culprits”—terminology, methodological approach, and journal type—influence levels of integration. We find the highest levels of integration among scholars using similar terms to describe diffusion processes, sharing a methodological approach (especially in quantitative scholarship), and publishing in a common set of subfield journals. These findings shed light on when cross-subfield communication is likely to occur with ease and when barriers may prove prohibitive.

Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis of International, American, and Comparative Politics

1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen V. Milner
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International System ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Strategic Interactions ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Separate Discipline

International relations has often been treated as a separate discipline distinct from the other major fields in political science, namely American and comparative politics. A main reason for this distinction has been the claim that politics in the international system is radically different from politics domestically. The degree of divergence between international relations (IR) and the rest of political science has waxed and waned over the years; however, in the past decade it seems to have lessened. This process has occurred mainly in the “rationalist research paradigm,” and there it has both substantive and methodological components. Scholars in this paradigm have increasingly appreciated that politics in the international realm is not so different from that internal to states, and vice versa. This rationalist institutionalist research agenda thus challenges two of the main assumptions in IR theory. Moreover, scholars across the three fields now tend to employ the same methods. The last decade has seen increasing cross-fertilization of the fields around the importance of institutional analysis. Such analysis implies a particular concern with the mechanisms of collective choice in situations of strategic interaction. Some of the new tools in American and comparative politics allow the complex, strategic interactions among domestic and international agents to be understood in a more systematic and cumulative way.

Studying Contemporary Europe

2000 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Wallace
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Review Article ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
Opening Up

The study of contemporary Europe has attracted growing attention in mainstream political science and international relations. Both studies of the European Union and cross-country comparisons of various political phenomena in different European countries are beginning to enrich our understanding of the process and limitations of integration. This growth of interest has also been stimulated by the opening up of central and eastern Europe which has encouraged scholars to address the issues of transformation using the tools of comparative politics. In addition, studies of Europeanisation are now being more systematically related to broader international developments and to the process of globalisation. British scholars, and British-based scholars, are making important contributions to the debates in political science and international relations. This review article traces some of the strands of this development.

Excellence and Its Recognition: The Dissertation Awards in Political Science

1980 ◽  
Vol 13 (03) ◽  
pp. 286-291
Author(s):  
William D. Richardson ◽  
Albert Somit
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Doctoral Dissertation ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
American Government ◽  
General Field ◽  
Memorial Award ◽  
American Political Science

How many things by season season'd are.To their right praise and true perfection!Merchant of Venice, i, 107In 1958 the American Political Science Association initiated the first of what were to be a number of awards for outstanding dissertations. In that year the Leonard D. White Memorial Award was established “… for the best doctoral dissertation within the general field of public administration.” This was followed, in turn, by the Edward S. Corwin Award (1973) “… for the best doctoral dissertation in the field of public law,” the Helen Dwight Reid Award (1965) “… for the best doctoral dissertation in the field of international relations,” and the E. E. Schattschneider Award (1971) “… for the best dissertation completed and accepted in the general field of American Government and Politics.” More recently, the Leo Strauss (1974), the William Anderson (1975), and the Gabriel A. Almond (1976) Awards have been established for the best dissertations in the fields of political philosophy, international relations and comparative politics, respectively.

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 166-167
Author(s):  
Bo Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-169
Author(s):  
Philippe C. Schmitter
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

A Discussion of Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder's Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool for Global Governance

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-164
Author(s):  
Milja Kurki
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Contemporary Practice

Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, assembles an impressive group of political scientists to critically discuss “the important analytical, normative, and policy issues associated with the contemporary practice of ‘grading states.’” The volume addresses a topic of importance to a wide range of political scientists in comparative politics, international relations, and political theory, and raises some fundamental questions about the role of political science at the nexus of theory and practice. We have thus invited a number of colleagues to discuss the volume and its broader implications for political science inquiry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document