Rigour versus relevance? : methodological discussions in political science
Politische vierteljahresschrift, 2016, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 11-26
HERITIER, Adrienne, Rigour versus relevance? : methodological discussions in political science, Politische vierteljahresschrift, 2016, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 11-26 - http://hdl.handle.net/1814/61532
Retrieved from Cadmus, EUI Research Repository
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.
Cadmus permanent link: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/61532
Full-text via DOI: 10.5771/0032-3470-2016-1-11
ISSN: 0032-3470; 1862-2860
Publisher: Springer Verlag
Files associated with this item
There are no files associated with this item.