Rigour versus relevance? : methodological discussions in political science

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.