Rigour versus relevance? : methodological discussions in political science
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
0032-3470; 1862-2860
Issue Date
Type of Publication
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Politische vierteljahresschrift, 2016, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 11-26
Cite
HERITIER, Adrienne, Rigour versus relevance? : methodological discussions in political science, Politische vierteljahresschrift, 2016, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 11-26 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/61532
Abstract
Is there a trade-off between methodological rigour and substantive relevance in political science? If yes, is this related to the use of quantitative or qualitative methods? Focusing on four arguments raised by Mead (2010), the article discusses the pros and cons of the critique of 'excessive specialization', 'methodologism', 'nonempiricism' and 'literature bias'. It concludes that the rigour versus relevance question is not a question of quantitative or qualitative research but rather a question of avoiding excesses on both sides, i.e. pure technology-driven quantitative research on the one side and vague qualitative descriptions on the other, opting for substantive problem oriented, methodologically stringent research in a limited-scope theoretical context.