Summary of *SOME* of the material for the final exam (2022) for Research Methods in Political Science. INCLUDES notes from (Total: 26 pages):
Sandra Halperin and Oliver Heath’s book (3rd edition, 2020) “Political Research Methods and Practical Skills”, chapters 1-7.
Sandra Mathison’s ...
Summary of *SOME* of the material for the final exam (2022) for Research Methods in Political
Science. INCLUDES notes from (Total: 26 pages):
● Sandra Halperin and Oliver Heath’s book (3rd edition, 2020) “Political Research Methods and
Practical Skills”, chapters 1-7.
● Sandra Mathison’s article (1988) “Why Triangulate?”, pp. 13-17.
● Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani and I-Chant A’s book (2nd edition, 2015) “Research Methods in
Psychology”, pp. 96-102.
1
Research Methods in Political Science Notes on *SOME* Readings
Table of Contents
“Political Research Methods and Practical Skills” 2
Chapter 1: Political Research 2
Part 1 - Philosophy of Social Science: Knowledge and Knowing in Social Science Research 4
Chapter 2: Forms of Knowledge: Laws, Explanation and Interpretation in the Study of the
Social World 4
Chapter 3: Political Research 9
Part 2 - How to Do Research: An Overview 11
Chapter 4: Asking Questions - How to Find and Formulate Research Questions 11
Chapter 5: Finding Answers - Theories and How to Apply Them 15
Chapter 6: Research Design 18
Chapter 7: What is data? 22
“Why Triangulate?” 25
“Research Methods in Psychology” 26
, 2
“Political Research Methods and Practical Skills”
Chapter 1: Political Research
Research methods are enabling = how to make arguments illustrated with examples + embedded in
normal reasoning.
➔ Investigates an argument, building on others’ work to expand on new insights.
➔ 3 basic positions:
1. Encourage pluralism in methodological approaches to political research.
2. Research should be problem-driven.
3. Research should have relevance to important political questions.
Significant Question: Directly relevant to solving real-world problems + furthering the goals of
specific literature.
➔ NO agreement on what constitutes a meaningful/plausible answer (politics is so diverse).
➔ Tendency to define empirical issues = ‘real world’ and normative issues = ‘ideas + values’.
Tendency to treat Politics and International Relations (IR) as separate fields.
➔ HOWEVER, NOT productive to treat domestic/international processes as analytically distinct.
➔ Political processes operate across levels/at multiple scales of analysis.
Sharp distinction between ‘empirical’ + ‘normative’ research.
➔ Empirical Research: Addresses events/political phenomena observed in the real world (what
is), based on first-hand gathering of data.
➔ Normative Research: Addresses questions about what should (ought to be).
Good social science = empirically grounded + relevant to human concerns.
➔ Must be clear about the difference between normative/empirical questions + statements.
➔ They are NOT independent of each other (e.g. theory of deliberative democracy).
Theory + evidence inform each other.
Epistemology: Concerned with understanding/explaining how we know what we know.
➔ Grand traditions in social science epistemology:
1. Positivism: Scientific method may be applied to the study of social life, knowledge is
only generated through observation (empiricism), facts/values are distinct (objective
inquiry = possible).
2. Interpretivism: Knowledge of the social world can be gained through interpreting the
meanings which give people reasons for acting (understand human behaviour, NOT
explain/predict it).
3. Scientific Realism: Reality consists of observable + unobservable elements.
➔ All have different ontological (nature of the social world) + epistemological (how we can
know of it) commitments.
The method you use in conducting research will always depend on the answers to the questions:
, 3
1. What RQs are you trying to answer?
2. What evidence or data do you need to answer the question?
3. How are you going to analyse the data, + what are the practical steps needed to
obtain/record them?
Scientific Method: The testing of hypotheses derived from pre-existing theories.
Search for a unified set of standards (substantively the same, differing only in the type of techniques
employed):
● Quantitative Research: Based on a statistical analysis of carefully coded information for many
cases/observations (good for making generalisations + consider different factors, BUT hard to
investigate hard-to-define concepts).
● Qualitative Research: Based on a discursive textual analysis of more loosely coded
information for just a few cases (good for reaching hard-to-define concepts + hard-to-reach
populations, BUT hard to go into detail + more costly resources).
Different methodological positions are NOT tied to any epistemological/ontological position.
NO method is better than another, BUT only better/less suited to addressing the specific RQ.
3 components of the research process:
1. Philosophy of Social Science: Knowledge and Knowing in Social Science Research
● Methodology = conduct of inquiry (ontology/epistemology = core part of this reflection).
● Philosophy of social science debates has implications for all areas of research.
● Understanding the terms/implications of major debates is important for good research. 2
key controversies in the philosophy of social science:
1. How we can know/develop knowledge about the social world.
➔ Questions about what sort of knowledge we can gain about the social world.
➔ 3 different approaches to answering these questions = positivism,
interpretivism, scientific realism.
2. Whether it is possible to separate facts/values in social science research.
2. How to do Research: An Overview
● Research Process: A set of components that often does NOT unfold linearly.
● Steps involving developing a plan for pursuing research on a topic:
1. Developing a RQ + locating applicable theory/literature. Basic requirements:
■ Answers need to be appropriate to the type of questions (descriptive,
explanatory, normative questions).
■ Needs to contribute to knowledge.
■ Must be clearly/fully specified.
2. Formulating testable ‘working’ hypotheses.
➔ Should be empirically/logically verifiable = falsifiable with evidence.
➔ Hypotheses can be:
◆ Confirmatory Research: Tested with evidence (questions = more
concrete).
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper giacomoef. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
