Lecture 1: Fact or fiction – Which knowledge counts?
Because the study of politics can be incredibly complicated and surrounded by confusion and controversy, when different
people try to answer questions concerning politics, the answers too have the same characteristics. Thus, who is to be
trusted, which answer is the best one? Research skills are crucial in our understanding of the world, as with these skills
we can evaluate different arguments and answers from different researchers, and we can also strengthen our arguments.
Most importantly, these skills constitute the core of political science (Halperin and Heath 2017:1).
1. Research methods – why should we care?
Many believe that research methods are constraining researchers. However, they are rather enabling them.
Methodology is concerned with hoe we obtain knowledge, the means and methods that can bring about knowledge that
can be regarded as legitimate.
Construction of credibility:
Credibility is produced differently in either realm on the basis of different sets of standards:
o There are two realms: Reals of scientific debate and Realm of public debate – there is a point where they
meet
What are research methods?
Simple definition: the ‘rules of the game’ in a scientific debate
o The question here is who establishes the rules of science.
More accurately, research methods are sets of codified (made explicit) insights on how to make credible
knowledge claims (so to comply with the rules of science) in a scientific debate.
o Research methods represent the red thread going through any point in the research
They are about how to make arguments, being embedded in the normal processes of thinking and reasoning.
They are tools of analysis. “They are an organic and creative aspect of thinking and problem-solving” Halperin
and Heath 2017: 2):
Why are they relevant to you?
Researchers are bound by the rules of science
o Complying with these ‘rules of the game is a necessary precondition for establishing oneself as a critical
and credible discussion partner or trustworthy researcher
o E.g. Studying in university is a process of familiarizing yourself with the rules of science marked by a
series of ‘rites de passage’ (e.g. Bachelor, Master’s Diploma, PhD.)
Knowing the rules of science enables you to participate in scientific debate and to tell good science from bad
(sloppy/ unethical/ fabricated nonsense) science
Education in research methods helps you:
o Acquire research skills
o Develop literacy in research ethics
o Develop ‘methodological literacy’: does what an author writes count as (proper) science)
There is not a common agreement on what makes up as a meaningful and trust worthy answer to a certain
research question. Under these circumstances, research methods do enable political researchers to offer
credible answers to their questions.
2. What counts as ‘proper’ science?
Quality criteria, researchable question, building on already known sources, ethically gained data, validity and
reliability
Qualitative vs quantitative data (Halperin and Heath 2017: 6):
, “Quantitative research tends to be based on the statistical analysis of carefully coded information for
many cases or observations.”
“Qualitative research tends to be based on the discursive analysis of more loosely coded information for
just a few cases.”
“The link between theory and evidence is central to sound research, to how we actually go about
collecting and analyzing the information or evidence that we need to support or undermine an
argument.”
Methodological literacy
Decipher what is written:
o What to look for in a research paper?
Assess the quality of the argument
o Is the selected method appropriate in the light of formulated research objectives and research
questions?
o Does the research produce an answer to the research question?
o Were the methods correctly applied etc. <apply quality criteria>
Bartels: Homer gets a tax cut
Variable-oriented research
Puzzle: (p16) Past years have seen a government-engineered transfer of wealth from the lower / middle classes to the rich
“what is most remarkable is that this massive upward transfer was broadly supported by ordinary Americans”
Research objective: “My aim here is to explore the basis of this strong …support”
Research question: “Why do millions of ordinary Americans support massive tax breaks for the rich in an era of accelerating
economic inequality?”
Theoretical exploration: (p17) “Analysts of American ideology have often emphasized … Hochschild / McClosky & Zaller /
Verba & Orren
Data collection: “The 2002 NES survey …” = National Selection Study – No new data collection, but using Data from existing
survey
Analysis: “The distribution of responses … demonstrates …” (p19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey ) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey
reveal very little popular enthusiasm for economic inequality” etc. – Interpreting the data
Engaging in a conversation with the data: (e.g. p23) “Again, however, this plausible expectation turns out to be
confounded by the data” – Formulating sub-questions
Conclusion: (p26) “that … ordinary people were simply confused about what is in their interests”
What to look for in a research paper:
- Puzzle
- Research objective(s)
- Research question(s)
- Theoretical exploration
- Data collection
- Analysis
- Engaging in a conversation with the data
- Conclusion = Answer(s) to the research question(s)
,Hochschild: Strangers in their own land
Puzzle: “That raised a big question in my mind. The disaster had been caused by a lightly regulated drilling company. But as
a Tea Party advocate, Mike had hailed government deregulation of all sorts, as well as drastic cuts in government spending
[…]. How could he be both near tears to recall his lost home and also call for a world stripped of most government beyond
the military and hurricane relief? I was puzzled.”
Research objective(s): “I’d come to Louisiana with an interest in walls. Not visible, physical walls […]. It was empathy walls
that interested me […]. I wanted to understand, if I could, how he saw the world.”
Research question(s): “But, is it possible, without changing our beliefs, to know others from the inside, to see reality
through their eyes, to understand the links between life, feeling, and politics; that is, to cross the empathy wall?”
Theoretical exploration: “According to The Big Sort”; “Inspired by Thomas Frank’s book What’s the Matter with Kansas?”,
etc.
Data collection: “We live in what the New Yorker has called the <Tea Party era>” Some 350,000 people are active members,
but, according to another Pew poll, some 20 percent of Americans […].”, etc.
Analysis: “Given such an array of challenges, one might expect people to welcome federal help”, etc.
Engagement in a conversation with the data: “Wrapped around these puzzles was a bigger one: how can a system both
create pain and deflect blame?”; “I found one thing missing in them all – a full understand of emotion in politics, What, I
wanted to know, do people want to feel, what do they think they should or shouldn’t feel, and what do they feel about a
range of issues?
Conclusion: “So, curious to find out, I began this journey into the heart of the right.”
Bartels + Hochschild
What do both texts have in common?
A comparable puzzle re. a relevant political phenomenon
o ‘Why do people vote against their own interest?’
o Hochschild: “Great paradox”
Why do people who need help from the government resent it so much?
What do they have in contrast?
A different way of formulating an answer
o Survey / variable-oriented research
o Participant observation / case-oriented research
Take-home message IPRes 1:
There is more than one way to do proper science
Scientific claims should be able to stand up to argument and critical scrutiny
There are various ways of doing research that, in principle, can equally stand up to argument and critical
scrutiny
The ‘Rules of the game’ are not sent in stone
Knowledge of methods enables you to act as a political scientist = “develop research skills”
Knowledge of methods enables you to tell ‘good science’ and ‘poor science’ apart = “develop methodological
literacy”
, Lecture 2: How do we know? – Ways of constructing knowledge in
political science
1. Ways of thinking about knowledge production (Marsh and Furlong 2002; Halperin and Heath 2017)
Where do we start when thinking about knowledge? What counts as it, are there any fundamentals?
o The way all social scientists approach their topic of research is modeled/shaped by both their ontological
and epistemological position. Furthermore, all those studying Political Science must identify the
positions they hold, also being able to protect and defend these positions from critiques from opposite
positions.
o These ontological and epistemological positions are related, but they must also suffer a separation.
Thus, the ontological position that one adopts affects but, surely, does not determine that person’s
epistemological position.
All researchers must face the questions about the nature of knowledge and how this knowledge is acquired.
Moreover, is the knowledge that we can gain about the social world the same at that scientists provide about
the natural world, or is it fundamentally different? Plus, what counts as legitimate knowledge?
Ontology – What is there to be known?
Ontology = theory of ‘being’ (word derived from the Greek for ‘existence’). Ontology is concerned with ‘what is’, with
basic assumptions of the social world. Thus, ontology questions do regard whether there is any fundamental difference
between the social and natural world.
Key question: “Is there a ‘real’ world ‘out there’ that is independent of our knowledge of it?”
E.g. Are there essential differences between genders, classes or races that exist in all contexts and at all
times?
Foundationalist perspective: There is a world ‘out there’ that exists independent of our knowledge of it.
vs.
Anti-Foundationalist perspective: There may be a material real out there but to human beings it has no
existence outside of language, of our social construction of it.
Are there ‘foundations’ we can base ourselves on, in knowledge production?
YES
Foundationalist perspective:
o there is something to stand on, a fixed point in place and time, that exists independent of the
observer / knower (NB including beliefs that are certain and justified without reference to other
beliefs).
o E.g. Descartes found his foundation in his thinking, not in something we observe.
The foundation is not in our reasoning because we may be misguided. But it is also not
in our observation, because it can be distorted.
He said the foundation is in our understanding.
o E.g. “Why don’t men need facial cream?” Answer depends on who you talk to, what you believe,
where you live, etc.
“There are fundamental differences between men and women that are features of their
very existences; persist over time; common across cultures”
NO
Anti-foundationalist perspective:
o there is no firm ground outside of that which humans agree to agree upon
, o e.g “Why don’t men need facial cream?” Answer depends on who you talk to, what you believe,
where you live, etc.
“Such difference between men and women are socially constructed; not essential, but
particular to a given culture and time”
Bunny example: We assign meaning to what we see. The moment we call something a bunny or a rabbit, it is already
there, we see it. When you show a class of students a picture of a bunny, some will see a cute animal, wonderful for
having as a pet; others will see it probably as tasty food.
Epistemology – What is the relation between the knower and the known, between what we look at and us,
researchers?
Epistemology is concerned with what is knowable, with what there can be know about the social world, with the
legitimacy of the knowledge about the social world.
1. Can an observer identify ‘real’ (or: ‘objective’) relations between two phenomena? The answer depends on
one’s ontological position:
YES (Foundationalist perspective)
Positivistic perspective
No (Anti-foundationalist perspective)
Interpretivist perspective
o Double hermeneutic (interpretative): Actors are the ones that interpret the world (one
hermeneutic level) and, on its turn, the observer interprets this interpretation (second
hermeneutic level). – Marsh and Furlong Article.
o Only ‘through the eye of the beholder’. So, you make sense of what you look at through
the eyes of the beholder.
2. If the answer to the previous question is yes. So, given that we can establish ‘real’ relationships between social
phenomena; Is observation the only way to know? Or are there ‘real’ phenomena (Foundationalist position) that
still evade direct observation.
YES (to the second question – so there are real phenomena that evade direct observation)
Realist perspective
NO
Back to Interpretivist perspective
2. Three perspective centre stage: Positivist, Interpretivist, Realist (Marsha and Furlong 2002;
Halperin and Heath 2017)
There are several ways in which to classify epistemological positions, with no agreement on the best one. The most
common distinction is between scientific (e.g. positivist) and hermeneutic (e.g. interpretivist) positions. An alternative,
however, is the distinction between positivist, realist and interpretivist positions. The three positions differ in several
way, with a focus on each of the position’s perspective of whether we can use natural science methods to study human
behaviour and the society.
Positivist perspective
The term positivism was invented by the French philosopher Auguste Comte to describe the last phase of the
search for truth, one based on a systematic gathering of facts trough observation. Positivism started with the
19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 60s behavioural revolution in the social sciences as an attempt of introducing certain scientific methods in the
study of society. Based on a foundationalist ontology and using most of the times a quantitative methodology,
supporters believed that a social ‘science’ was possible through the following of a scientific method: “deriving
hypothesis from theory and then testing them in an attempt to falsify them.”
, To better understand positivism, it is important to know what behavioralist means. This term refers to the
application of positivism and empiricism to research in political science. For these behavioralists, research in the
field of politics implies the study and explanation of the behaviour of individuals that can be observed. The post-
behavioralist revolution brought about two main directions, one towards an increased influence of positivism,
and another towards the approaches of interpretivism. Behaviouralism, thus, put the basis of a research done
through empirical observation, systematic testing of evidence, together with falsifiable and causal explanations.
o Behaviouralism moved the trend towards ‘positive political theory’ or rational choice theory.
Tenets of classical positivism (Halperin and Heath 2017: 28-30):
o Naturalism: The first tenet of positivism, the idea that between the natural and social world there are no
fundamental differences.
o Empiricism: A second tenet of positivism, empiricism is a philosophical theory of knowledge which
claims that the knowledge we have about the world is harshly limited to what we can observe.
o Laws: The goal of science is to provide explanations and predictions of different social phenomena based
on laws. German logician Carl Gustav Hempel sustained that if laws are of necessity in the world of
natural sciences, then they are also of necessity in the world of social sciences.
These laws can be discovered through induction and deduction.
The researchers continuously move from theory to observation and from observation to theory.
o Distinction between facts and values: “The pursuit of knowledge through application of scientific
methods used in the natural sciences can be value free or objective, because statements of fact can be
distinguished from normative statements.”
In short: Positivists look for casual relationships between observable phenomena, prefer quantitative analysis to produce
objective and generalizable findings.
Key assumptions in positivism:
1. Being based on a foundationalist ontology, positivism claims that the world exists independently of our
knowledge of it.
2. Here, natural and social science are broadly analogous, meaning that there is no fundamental difference
between the social world and the natural world as an object of research.
3. Empiricism and logics are the basis of truth claims.
4. No deep structures exist that cannot be observed, with the world being real, rather than socially
constructed.
5. The researcher sets out to discover cause and effect relationships between phenomena, making casual
statements as they believe that it is possible to and we must attempt to establish these relationships.
6. The researcher and her / his object of study are completely separate. Thus, the observer can be
objective:
what we observe are attributes of the object we study.
7. There is a clear distinction between facts and values.
8. What we can know of the world is limited by our ability to observe.
9) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey . Positivists believe in the possibility to separate empirical (questions about what is) and normative
questions (questions about what should be).
Criticism:
1. In following the methods of science, there is a misinterpretation of how the processes of science really
work:
Pragmatist position of Quine (19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 61): Argues that any of the knowledge that is derived from the
use of the five senses goes through a mediation by the concepts we use to analyze it, therefore
not being any method to describe or classify experience without its interpretation. Thus, theory
and experiment cannot simply be separated, but rather theory affects the facts we observe and
the way we interpret them.
Kuhn’s view (19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 70): At any time, there is a tendency of science being dominated by a paradigm
which is unquestioned, influencing the questions researchers ask and the way they proceed with
, the interpretation. Therefore, scientific inquiry is not, as positivism assumes, ‘open’, but rather
several conclusions are unthinkable.
2. There are clearly identifiable differences between social and natural phenomena, making a social
‘science’ impossible. Three differences are important in this case:
Social structures, as opposed to natural ones, do not exist in an independent state of the events
they shape.
Social structures, as opposed to natural ones, do not exist in an independent state of the agents’
views of what they are performing a certain event.
Social structures, as opposed to natural ones, are in constant change due to the performance of
agents; thus, the social world varies across time and space.
E.g. Ethnic Variety: Is there a relation between the ethnic variety in a community, and the quality of living in that
community (how people do – social capital)?
1. Robert Putman, from a positivist perspective asked the question of how we could observe something as
abstract as ethnic diversity and social capital. To answer this question, he brought into discussion the
need of some indicators, aspects of those concepts that we could observe and measure.
Interpretivist perspective
With a clear number of varying views within the interpretivist tradition, all fall under the anti-foundationalist and critical
of positivism umbrella. Although they became more common in political science in the 19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 70s, the influence of these
approaches can be identified on a large scale in the political science area.
In short: Interpretivists focus on understanding social/political phenomena, via the meaning that these have for actors,
prefer qualitative analysis and offer the results as one interpretation. We live in “a world of our making”, as Nicolas Onuf
(19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 89) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey ) has stated. Social phenomena are created either socially or discursively, thus they cannot be either predicted or
explained through laws.
Key assumptions in interpretivism:
1. Interpretivist researchers are anti-foundationalists that reject the theory that the world exists
independently of our knowledge of it, it being actually socially or discursively constructed.
2. There is a fundamental difference between the social world and the natural world as an object of
research.
3. The researcher and that which is being researched are connected. If only because our understanding of
reality is never outside language.
4. What is there to know can only be known ‘through the eye of the beholder’. Interpretation or meanings
can only be identified and shaped within discourses and traditions, and they are crucial to understanding
the social phenomena.
5. What we observe are constructions that result from the interaction between researcher and research
object. Objective analysis is impossible, because social scientists themselves operate within these
discourses or traditions.
6. There is no objective truth and because quantitative methods may produce misleading data, there is a
need for the utilization of qualitative data so as to be able to understand how people perceive their
world.
7. Cause and effect at best can be understood in terms of ‘mutual simultaneous shaping’.
8. There are a multitude of approaches involved, constituting of hermeneutics, cultural anthropology,
verstehen social theory, critical theory and post-structuralism (Halperin and Heath 2017:41).
Criticism:
1. “To positivists, the interpretivist tradition merely offers opinions or subjective judgements about the
world. As such, there is no basis on which to judge the validity of their knowledge claims.”
2. Whose view counts? Is one interpretation more important than another? If yes, how do we determine
which one comes first?
Realist perspective
,Realism shares an ontological position with positivism, but, in light of epistemological approaches, relativism is more
similar to relativism. The core values within realism are largely based on Marx’s work.
In short: Realists look for casual relationships but acknowledge that some relationships between social phenomena
cannot be observed. They use both quantitative and qualitative analysis for studying directly observable aspects and
approach the results as indications of unobservable relationships that we can theorize to be present.
Key assumptions in realism:
1. Reality is out there (foundationalist ontology), the world exists independently of our knowledge of it.
2. Not all social phenomena and relationship between them are directly observable; Also, reality is only
objectively observable to a limited extent:
“there are enduring structures and generative mechanisms underlying and producing
observable phenomena” (Bhaskar, 2010:2)
3. These underlying structures can be observed via their manifestations in the observable reality
“Classical Marxism, and Marxism is the archetypal classical realism, argued that there was a
difference between ‘real’ interests, which reflect material reality, and perceived interests, which
might be manipulated by the powerful forces in society” (Marsh and Furlong 2002: 31).
4. There is often a dichotomy between reality and appearance.
5. Observation of these is based on, and informed by theory.
6. Contemporary realism has been greatly influenced by the interpretivist critique:
While social phenomena do exist in an independent state of the interpretation we give them,
the interpretation or meaning we give them still affect the outcome.
Our knowledge of the world is fallible, theory-laden. Thus, in order to explain the interactions
between social phenomena, we must identify and comprehend not only the external ‘reality’,
but also the social construction we give that reality.
Criticism:
1. “Positivists denied the existence of unobservable structures, arguing that positing them makes the
knowledge claims of realism untestable and, thus, unfalsifiable.”
2. “Interpretivists criticize the foundational claims of realism, there not being structures that are
independent of social action and no objective basis on which to observe the actions or infer the deep
structures.”
Globalization – How a researcher’s positions affect the way they approach the topic of globalization (Marsh
and Furlong 2002: 32-36):
The literature on globalization started appearing in the 19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 9) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 0s, all sharing a universal distinguish between different
processes of globalization, with many focusing on a distinction between economic, political and cultural processes.
For instance, political scientists have adopted predominantly a foundationalist ontology and a positivist
epistemology putting a great amount of attention on the economic processes of globalization and how these
limits the autonomy of the states. Others, in more recent times, have oriented themselves towards realism. On
the other side of the specter, sociologists looking at the cultural processes of globalization do so from an anti-
foundationalist and interpretivist approach.
Within the debate concerning economic globalization, the main concern has been with its increase. In this realm,
there are two important points:
o Hyperglobalists: Some authors (e.g. Ohmae 19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 9) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 0) sustain that the indicators of economic globalization –
international bank lending, transnational production, transnational trade, direct foreign investment, etc.
– have suffered an increase.
o Sceptics: Other authors (e.g. Hirst and Thompson 19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 9) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey 9) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey ) sustain that globalization does not represent a
new phenomenon and label the new changes as regionalization, affirming that globalization has
occurred mostly in relation with the financial markets.
Other authors have criticized the previously mentioned ontological and epistemological approach. From these
critics has aroused the ‘Transformationalist Thesis’. Transformationalists believe that globalization is behind the
, rapid political social and economic changes shaping the current societies. Thus, globalization is seen as a
transformative force, but there is not one clear process of globalization that can be identified.
o Thus, globalization can be regarded as a socially constructed process, as it is dependent on the certain
actions that agents conduct.
o Given this, agents construct globalization in different ways in different places, which asks for a context-
specific analysis, labeled as ‘comparative analysis’.
Different countries, companies, market experience globalization according to their own
respective context, from which globalization can be regarded as a series of discursive
constructions, which strongly affect the agents involved, shaping the overall results.
This way of looking at globalization consists of both realist and interpretivist aspects, due to an
analysis of the real world, but with a focus on the discursive constructions related to the real
world in question.
3. Why are such distinctions useful for reasoning about research methods and research
design?
Why are such distinctions useful and important?
“Ontological and epistemological positions should not be treated like a sweater that can be ‘put on’ when we are
addressing such philosophical issue and ‘taken off’ when we are doing research. Researchers cannot adopt one position
at one time for one project and another on another occasion for a different project. These approaches are not
interchangeable because they reflect fundamental different approaches to what social science is and how we do it”
(Marsh and Furlong 2002: 21).
Answers provided to the ontological and epistemological questions determine your methodological direction.
The epistemological position influences what is studied, how it is studied and the status that the findings are
given by the researcher based on that position.
Influence the type of research questions you can ask.
Influence how you design your research.
Influence the methods you select.
E.g. If globalization is understood as a “socially constructed process”, then agents ‘construct globalization’ in different
ways in different place, which begs for a context-specific analysis, thus a comparative analysis.
Implications for research/ 3 perspectives on conducting research
Positivist:
o Looks for casual relationships between observable phenomena defined on an individualistic, prefers
quantitative analysis (measuring) to produce objective and generalizable findings (objective – explaining)
about individualistic aspects.
o Foundationalists that focus on identifying the causes of social behaviour, with an emphasis on
explanation.
o General thinking that the development of strict scientific methods would lead to the development of
social laws that would hold across time and space (Marsh and Furlong 2002: 19) “Taken as a whole, the data from the 2002 NES survey ).
Interpretivist:
o Use of qualitative methods in predominance, mapping meaning making processes.
o Supporters of the hermeneutic traditions are anti-foundationalists who believe what the world is socially
constructing.
o Focus on the meaning of behaviour, highlighting understanding and reflecting, rather than explanation.
o Focus on understanding social phenomena defined as evolving between actors and their contexts, via
the meanings that actors weave, prefers qualitative analysis, and offers the result “as one interpretation
of the relationship between the phenomena studied” (Marsh and Furlong 2002: 21).
Realist:
, o Use of both quantitative and qualitative methods to understand and explain observable phenomena and
non-directly observable phenomena.
o Theory is central.
o Looks for causal relationships between phenomena defined on an individualistic level and on the level of
society as a whole, acknowledges that some relationships between social phenomena cannot be
observed
o Approaches the results as indications of unobservable relationships that we can theorize to be present.
Main approaches to ontology and epistemology (Tutorial 1 + Halperin and Heath)
Positivism Interpretivism Realism
Ontological position: What is Foundationalist ontology Anti-foundationalist ontology Foundationalist ontology
the nature of the social The world is socially The world exists
world? The world exists constructed. The social world is independently of our
independently and objectively fundamentally different from knowledge of it. The social
of our knowledge of it (a the natural world. Reality, thus, world is no different from the
‘naturalist’ ontology). is not mind-independent, but natural world.
rather subjectively created.
Epistemological position: Relations are directly Relations are dependent on our Scientific knowledge is not
What sort of knowledge of observable (facts). Scientific interpretation of them limited to what we can
the social world is possible? knowledge of the social world (meanings). Scientific observe, but also includes
is limited to what can be knowledge can be gained theoretical entities
observed. Thus, social through interpreting the (unobservable elements of
phenomena can be explained meaning which give people the social life). We can explain
by the discovery of empirical reasons for acting. This is the and predict social phenomena
regularities, law-like way to understand human based on theories about these
generalizations, and behaviour, although it cannot be entities and certify the truth
establishing casual predicted based on law-like of these theories by
relationships. generalization or casual employing various rules of
relationships. method.
Implications/Causality: What Aim to make causal Aim to uncover how people Aim to understand why things
do we mean by ‘Causes’? statements and predictions. understand social phenomena. are the way they are. A
Reflection of the way in which We cannot seek causes, but only reflection of reality,
we think about the world, uncover meaning that provide established by unobservable
established by discovering the reasons for action. underlying generative
observable regularities. mechanisms.
Methodology: Interpretative theory and Through direct observation
How can we gain knowledge Through direct observation. textual strategies. The social and logic applied to both
of the social world? world is like a text and has to be observable and unobservable
interpreted to discover hidden structures.
meanings and subtexts.
Criticism Knowledge is mediated by the Lack of concreteness Claims may not be testable
concepts and interpretation Relativism
Lecture 3: The ‘why’ and ‘how’ of political science research –
A Roundtable with prof. M. de Goede and dr. M. Henegraaff
