Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHERITIER, Adrienne
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-01T14:53:59Z
dc.date.available2019-03-01T14:53:59Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationPolitische vierteljahresschrift, 2016, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 11-26en
dc.identifier.issn0032-3470
dc.identifier.issn1862-2860en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/61532
dc.description.abstractIs 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.
dc.language.isode
dc.publisherSpringeren
dc.relation.ispartofPolitische vierteljahresschrift
dc.subjectMethodological rigour
dc.subjectTrade-off rigour vs relevance
dc.subjectQuantitative and qualitative research
dc.subjectInternational-Relationsen
dc.subjectSocial-Scienceen
dc.subjectPerestroikaen
dc.titleRigour versus relevance? : methodological discussions in political science
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.5771/0032-3470-2016-1-11
dc.identifier.volume57
dc.identifier.startpage11
dc.identifier.endpage26
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
dc.identifier.issue1


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record