scholarly journals The Case for Comparative Ethnography

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica S. Simmons ◽  
Nicholas Rush Smith
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Methods ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Ethnographic Research ◽  
Popular Method ◽  
Comparative Ethnography ◽  
Advance Knowledge ◽  
Better Than

To what extent can comparative methods and ethnographic inquiry combine to advance knowledge in political science? Ethnography is becoming an increasingly popular method within political science. Yet both proponents and detractors often see it as a technique best suited for producing in-depth knowledge about a particular case or for explicating the meaning of a particular political behavior. This article argues that comparative ethnography—ethnographic research that explicitly and intentionally builds an argument through the analysis of two or more cases—can be of particular value to political scientists, and to scholars of comparative politics in particular. The approach can hone our theoretical models, challenge existing conceptual categories, and help develop portable political insights. This article has two goals: (1) to show that comparative ethnographic research deserves a prominent place in the repertoire of qualitative methods and (2) to elaborate the logics of inquiry behind such comparisons so that scholars will be better equipped to use them more frequently. Two or more cases are not always better than one, but comparative ethnography can yield new and different insights with important implications for our understandings of politics.

The Threat of Genes: A Comment on Evan Charney's “Genes and Ideologies”

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Hannagan ◽  
Peter K. Hatemi
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Biological Sciences ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Science Review ◽  
The Social ◽  
American Political Science

In his essay, “Genes and Ideologies,” Evan Charney wrangles with the question of the role of genes in the formation of political attitudes via a critique of Alford, Funk, and Hibbing's 2005 American Political Science Review article. Although critical evaluations are necessary, his essay falls short of what is required of a scientific critique on both empirical and theoretical grounds. We offer a comment on his essay and further contend that it is naïve to proceed on the assumption that a barrier exists between the biological and social sciences, such that the biological sciences have nothing to offer the social sciences. If we look beyond our discipline's current theoretical models we may find a more thorough, and not just competing, explanation of political behavior.

Biology and Political Science. By Robert H. Blank and Samuel M. Hines, Jr. New York: Routledge, 2001. 183p. $80.00.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-799
Author(s):  
John Strate
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Equal Importance ◽  
Political Science Journals

What is biopolitics? The authors are well-published scholars in this field, and their answer to this question supplied in this book should give hope to those who are disappointed with the direction and progress of political science. Many of the questions about politics that biopolitics addresses were first asked by ancient political philosophers, such as Aristotle. The field of biopolitics, however, is only 30 or 40 years old. Over that time the field has strengthened its institutional base. Of equal importance, it has produced a growing body of scholarship in such fields as political theory, comparative politics and international relations, methodology, political behavior and decision making, and public administration and public policy. Unfortunately, largely because the field is interdisciplinary, only a small portion of this scholarship has been published in the major political science journals, so that most political scientists and other social scientists are largely unaware of what this field is and what it has to offer.

What is Ethnography? Teaching ethnographic sensibilities without fieldwork

Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole McGranahan
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Methods ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Ethnographic Research ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Pedagogical Strategies ◽  
Ethnographic Approach ◽  
Learn By Doing ◽  
Do So

How do we teach undergraduate students to think ethnographically, to recognize something as ethnographic and not just as qualitative? Importantly, how do we do so not in the field, where students might learn by doing their own research, but in the static classroom? One approach is to have students cultivate a concept, awareness, and practice of an ethnographic sensibility, that is, of a sense of the ethnographic as the lived expectations, complexities, contradictions, possibilities, and ground of any given cultural group. Such a view opens up an understanding of ethnography and ethnographic research as more than available qualitative methods. Instead, it takes an ethnographic approach to be an epistemological one. Yet, how might we do this? In this article, I discuss my pedagogical strategies for teaching students an ethnographic sensibility without having them conduct fieldwork. I argue that it is both possible and valuable to generate an ethnographic sensibility in the classroom. 

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 Why Political Science Is an Ethical Issue

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 425-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Bevir ◽  
Jason Blakely
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Methods ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Ethical Issue ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Historical Past ◽  
Interpretive Turn

Many advocates of interpretive approaches to the study of politics emphasize that what is at stake is a conflict between “quantitative” versus “qualitative” methods. By contrast, we begin by suggesting that political scientists are free to use whichever method they find most useful for their research purposes. Instead of methodological reasons for making the interpretive turn, political scientists have ethical reasons for adopting this paradigm. In particular, interpretive approaches give political scientists a better account of the nature and role of values in human life, a sense for how the historical past is ethically relevant, the ability to advance politically engaged sociologies, and a deliberative critique of technocracy. Political scientists should be free to critically engage, scrutinize, and even normatively evaluate human ethical positions.

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.

scholarly journals JOKOWI VS PRABOWO: THE POLITENESS AND ITS VIOLATION IN POLITICAL COMMUNICATION OF INDONESIAN PRESIDENT CANDIDATES

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 31-38
Author(s):  
Budi Rizka ◽  
Lismalinda ◽  
Adnan ◽  
Moriyanti ◽  
Faisal
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
The Political ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Pragmatic Approach ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Descriptive Method

Purpose of the study: The study aims are to investigate levels of language politeness and its violations in the political communication of Jokowi and Prabowo and to describe the types of politeness and its violations in political communication of Jokowi and Prabowo as Indonesian president candidates in 2019. Methodology: This research was used a qualitative approach with the descriptive method by paying attention to the Interactive Model theory to describe the object in analysis data through a pragmatic approach to identify the politeness principles and its violation following Leech’s (1983) theory. The subject of data on this research has conducted the utterances of Indonesian president candidates 2019 in the second debate session. Main Findings: The result of the study can be concluded that five principles of politeness seen in the utterances of the presidential candidate. They are tact, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy maxim. Furthermore, in this research, Prabowo was more polite than Jokowi where he has produced utterances of approbation, agreement, and less violation of modesty, while Jokowi more violated the modesty maxim. Applications of this study: The study has an impact on political behavior. Other areas of study include social and political science and communication Novelty/Originality of this study: This research is the new way in the context of language politeness study where combined the language politeness principles with socio-political science especially political communication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document