Qualitative methods are currently undergoing a renaissance in political science, with a rich new literature developing and disseminating them and greatly increased attention to preparing scholars in their use. Although this is a discipline-wide phenomenon, at the same time political science continues to be differentiated along subfield lines. The collection of articles in this symposium describes the trajectory of qualitative methods in three of political science’s empirical subfields: comparative politics, international relations (IR), and American politics. Although much of the new literature and training is self-consciously transdisciplinary, the subfields continue to exert a strong influence. These essays investigate the three empirical subfields to uncover some of the areas in which they have made more progress and therefore have particular strengths to share, to provide some examples of applications of qualitative methods outside of readers’ own subfields, and to help make sure that future methodological opportunities offered by discipline-wide developments are not limited by subfield lacunas.
Abbott, A. (2001). Time matters: On theory and method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Bates, Robert H., Greif, Avner, Levi, Margaret, Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent, & Weingast, Barry R. (1998). Analytic narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Bennett, Andrew, Barth, Aharon, & Rutherford, Kenneth. (2003). Do we preach what we practice? A survey of methods in journals and graduate curricula. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36, 373-378.
4.
Brady, Henry E., & Collier, David. (Eds.). (2004). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
Caporaso, James A. (2000). Comparative politics: Diversity and coherence. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6-7), 699-702.
6.
Collier, David. (1991). The comparative method: Two decades of change. In D. Rustow & K. P. Erickson (Eds.), Comparative political dynamics: Global research perspectives (pp. 7-31). New York: HarperCollins.
7.
Collier, David. (1993). The comparative method. In A. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: State of the discipline II (pp. 105-119). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
8.
Collier, David, & Adcock, Robert. (1999). Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 537-565.
9.
Collier, David, & Levitsky, Steven. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430-451.
10.
Collier, David, & Mahon, James E. (1993). Conceptual “stretching” revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 87(4), 845-855.
11.
Eckstein, Harry. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 7, pp. 79-137). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12.
Elman, Colin, & Elman, Miriam Fendius. (Eds.). (2001). Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists and the study of international relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Elman, Colin, & Elman, Miriam Fendius. (Eds.). (2003). Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Geddes, Barbara. (2003). Paradigms and sandcastles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
15.
George, Alexander. (1979). Case studies and theory development: The method of structured, focused comparison. In G. Lauren (Ed.), Diplomacy: New approaches in history, theory and policy (pp. 43-68). New York: Free Press.
16.
George, Alexander L., & Bennett, Andrew. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
George, Alexander L., & McKeown, Timothy J. (1985). Case studies and theories of organizational decision making. In R. Coulam & R. Smith (Eds.), Advances in information processing in organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 21-58). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
18.
Gerring, John. (2001). Social science methodology: A criterial framework. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Goertz, Gary. (2006). Social science concepts: A user’s guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Goertz, Gary, & Levy, Jack. (in press). Causal explanations, necessary conditions, and case studies: World War I and the end of the cold war. New York: Routledge.
21.
Goertz, Gary, & Mahoney, James. (2004). The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 653-669.
Jervis, Robert. (1997). System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
Jervis, Robert. (2000). Timing and interaction in politics: A comment on Pierson. Studies in American Political Development, 14, 93-100.
25.
Kahler, Miles. (1997). Inventing international relations: International relations theory after 1945. In M. W. Doyle & G. J. Ikenberry (Eds.), New thinking in international relations theory (pp. 20-53). Boulder, CO: Westview.
26.
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., & Verba, Sidney. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Lieberman, Evan. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435-452.
28.
Lijphart, Arend. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682-693.
29.
Mahoney, James. (1999). Nominal, ordinal and narrative appraisal in macro-causal analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 104(4), 1154-1196.
30.
Mahoney, James, & Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. (Eds.). (2003). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Pierson, Paul. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Przeworksi, Adam, & Teune, Henry. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: John Wiley.
33.
Ragin, Charles C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
Ragin, Charles. (2000). Fuzzy set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
Sartori, Giovanni. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033-1053.
36.
Smelser, Neil J. (1976). Comparative methods in the social sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
37.
Spruyt, Hendrik. (1994). The sovereign state and its competitors: An analysis of systems change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Tetlock, Philip E., & Belkin, Aaron. (Eds.). (1996). Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
